Does human papillomavirus modify the risk of oropharyngeal cancer related to smoking and alcohol drinking? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To synthesize evidence for interactions of traditional oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) risk factors-tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking-with human papillomavirus (HPV). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest, and Global Health were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date. Methods: All case-control studies assessing interactions between these factors in OPSCC were considered. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control studies. The main outcome was the OR for developing OPSCC for the following interactions: (1) HPV and smoking, (2) HPV and alcohol drinking, and (3) HPV, alcohol drinking, and smoking. Interactions were assessed from stratified analysis (by HPV status) and/or joint effect analysis (synergy index and multiplicative index). Results: The search provided 3084 relevant studies, of which 9 were included. In the stratified analysis, the OR of developing OPSCC among smokers with HPV was less than that among smokers without HPV. A similar pattern was observed for alcohol drinking. This effect persisted among smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers with HPV compared with those without HPV. Joint effect analysis on the additive scale showed sub-additive antagonistic interactions between HPV and smoking, and between HPV and alcohol. On the multiplicative scale, sub-multiplicative interactions were found between HPV and smoking, and HPV and alcohol. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests a negative directed interaction of HPV and smoking; and HPV and heavy alcohol drinking in the development of primary OPSCC on stratified analysis and joint effect analysis. Level of Evidence: 3A.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".