MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220768706 · doi:10.3390/jcm11071793

Malignant Transformation Rate of Oral Submucous Fibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4220768706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vignesh Murthy, Petros Mylonas, Barbara Carey, Sangeetha Yogarajah, D. J. J. Farnell, Owen Addison, Richard J. Cook, Michael Escudier, Márcio Diniz Freitas, Jacobo Limeres Posse, Luı́s Monteiro, Luís Silva, Jean‐Cristophe Fricain, Sylvain Catros, Mathilde Fénelon, Giovanni Lodi, Niccolò Lombardi, Vlaho Brailo, Raj Ariyaratnam, José López‐López, Rui Albuquerque

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOral submucous fibrosisMeta-analysisGastroenterologyInternal medicineDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic progressive condition affecting the oral cavity, oropharynx and upper third of the oesophagus. It is a potentially malignant disorder. The authors collated and analysed the existing literature to establish the overall malignant transformation rate (MTR). A retrospective analysis of medical and dental scientific literature using online indexed databases was conducted for the period 1956 to 2021. The quality of the enrolled studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis using a random effects model of a single proportion was performed along with statistical tests for heterogeneity. The overall proportion of malignancy across all studies was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.10), indicating an overall 6% risk of malignant transformation across all studies and cohorts. Sub-group analyses revealed strong differences in proportion of malignancy according to ethnicity/cohort; Chinese = 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.02), Taiwanese = 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03-0.10), Indian = 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.14) and Pakistani = 0.27 (95% CI 0.25-0.29). Overall, the MTR was 6%; however, wide heterogeneity of the included studies was noted. Geographic variations in MTR were noted but were not statistically significant. Further studies are required to analyse the difference between cohort groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.386
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicOral Health Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207