Smoking and Drinking Adjusted Association between Head and Neck Cancers and Oral Health Status Related to Periodontitis: a Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Not so many reports about the association between head and neck cancer (HNC) and oral health status related to periodontitis (OHS-P) has been published in different countries with different methods. So, there is a need for an extensive meta-analysis with the total articles published until 2020. Hence, this study aimed to estimate the association between HNC and OHS-P through a meta-analysis. METHODS: Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines, 22 studies were selected through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Meta-analysis using them was performed to evaluate the association. The risk of bias assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to evaluate the quality of non-randomized studies. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger's regression test. RESULTS: = 0.66). Moreover, the association was higher in 10 fair or good NOS studies (OR, 3.08) and in 7 Asian studies (OR, 2.68), which were from the fixed model without publication bias. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that bad OHS-P was associated with the risk of HNC. The association was stronger in studies using ABL or CAL for assessing periodontitis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".