MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309043758 · doi:10.47750/pnr.2022.13.s05.232

A Systematic Review On The Prevalence Of Oral Cancer Among Tobacco And Non-Tobacco Users In Tamil Nadu

2022· review· en· W4309043758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Tamilselvi Dr. B. Velmurugan S. Preethi Sowmia, Dinesh Dhamodhar, S Sathiyapriya, D Prabu, M Rajmohan, V V Bharathwaj, R Sindhu, S Elakiya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTamilSmokeless tobaccoMedicineCancerEnvironmental healthTobacco useOral CancersInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Oral Cancer Is One Of The World's Most Common Types Of Cancer, With Delayed Diagnosis And Poor Prognosis. IndiaIs Among The Leading Countries With A High Rate Of Oral Cancer Due To Its Increased Tobacco Use Rate.Aim: This Study Aims To Assess The Prevalence Of Oral Cancer Among Tobacco And Non-Tobacco Users In Tamil Nadu.Materials And Method: A Systematic Review Of Cross-Sectional Studies Were Performed. The Data Was Searched Using ElectronicDatabases, And 376 Articles Were Screened. The Intervention And Outcomes Were Assessed In The Studies Included In TheSystematic Review. The Bias Assessment Done For The Article Was Based On The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results: Overall Analysis Of The Studies Shows That The Prevalence Of Oral Cancer In Tamil Nadu Has Been Significantly IncreasingAnd That Smokeless Tobacco Causes Oral Cancer Compared With Other Forms Of Tobacco.Conclusion: The Prevalence Of Oral Cancer In Tamil Nadu Is Increasing Significantly With The Usage Of The Increased Amount OfTobacco, And Awareness Of The Ill Effects Of Tobacco Usage May Considerably Decrease The Rates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmaceutical Negative ResultsSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207