Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancers and Possible Risk Factors Across Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there is an emerging increase in the prevalence of oral and oropharyngeal cancers (O-OPCs) across the Arabian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Consequently, this review aimed to explore the epidemiology and possible risk factors of O-OPCs in GCC countries. METHODS: Data published after 2008 related to O-OPCs in GCC countries were obtained through electronic searches in Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Keywords related to the association between O-OPCs metrics (epidemiology and risk factors) and GCC countries were used for electronic searches. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of OPCs increased significantly over time (40-51%) in some countries (Saudi Arabia and Arab Emigrated) of the Gulf regions. The pooled risk factor was 3.4 (2.5 - 4.7). Among the risk factors, human papillomavirus and the use of smoke and smokeless tobacco revealed odds ratio (OR) 3.31 (3.13 - 4.5) and 0.60 (0.45 - 0.80) at 95% confidence interval (CI). CONCLUSION: A positive correlation between factors like age, diet, hygiene, genetics, viral and bacterial infection, consumption of alcohol and tobacco products with OPC-MFC is suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".