An exotic pathogenetic mechanism of angiogenesis in oral lichen planus—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Angiogenesis plays a vital role at the molecular level in various inflammatory lesions, that lead to their chronicity. Oral lichen planus is an immune-mediated chronic inflammatory disorder. The angiogenetic role and exact mechanisms in oral lichen planus are still unclear due to a dearth of studies. Its clinical significance with angiogenesis also requires further elucidation necessitating a thorough review of the studies that have been conducted so far. The present review was designed to identify the dependence of oral lichen planus progression on angiogenesis which could aid in devising metronomic treatments required to halt the progression of this disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough search was made using MEDLINE by PubMed, Scopus, Google scholar, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases. Original research articles, that immunohistochemically evaluated angiogenesis in oral lichen planus were included for review. Risk of bias was analysed for each study using Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Review Manager 5.4 was used to output its result. RESULTS: Twenty-nine published articles were included for data synthesis. The most commonly employed antibody was CD34, however, upregulated VEGF expression was the principal while ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and PECAM-1 were critical angiogenic factors to mediate angiogenesis in oral lichen planus. CONCLUSION: The current evidence supports that angiogenesis, a fundamental pathogenetic mechanism of oral lichen planus, leads to its persistence and chronicity. However, studies with a larger sample size, standard evaluation criteria, different subtypes, and adequate follow-up are warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".