Use of <scp>DNA</scp> image cytometry in conducting oral cancer screening in rural India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Oral cancer screening can assist in the early detection of oral potentially malignant lesions (OPMLs) and prevention of oral cancers. It can be challenging for clinicians to differentiate OPMLs from benign conditions. Adjunct screening tools such as fluorescence visualisation (FV) and DNA image cytometry (DNA-ICM) have shown success in identifying OPMLs in high-risk clinics. For the first time we aimed to assess these technologies in Indian rural settings and evaluate if these tools helped clinicians identify high-risk lesions during screening. METHODS: Dental students and residents screened participants in five screening camps held in villages outside of Hyderabad, India, using extraoral, intraoral, and FV examinations. Lesion and normal tissue brushings were collected for DNA-ICM analysis and cytology. RESULTS: Of the 1116 participants screened, 184 lesions were observed in 152 participants. Based on white light examination (WLE), 45 lesions were recommended for biopsy. Thirty-five were completed on site; 25 (71%) were diagnosed with low-grade dysplasias (17 mild, 8 moderate) and the remaining 10 showed no signs of dysplasia. FV loss was noted in all but one dysplastic lesion and showed a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 17%. Cytology combined with DNA-ICM had a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 86% in detecting dysplasia. CONCLUSION: DNA-ICM combined with cytology identified the majority of dysplastic lesions and identified additional lesions, which were not considered high-risk during WLE and biopsy on site. Efforts to follow-up with these participants are ongoing. FV identified most high-risk lesions but added limited value over WLE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".