The correlation between human papillomavirus and oral lichen planus: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disorder with cell-induced immunopathological responses and is considered a potential malignancy disorder in the oral cavity. Due to the high prevalence of OLP as well as the potential for malignancy, human papillomaviruses (HPVs) may play an important role in it. Although previous studies have explored the possible relationship between HPV and OLP, the findings have been conflicting and nonconclusive. This study aims to review the studies that investigated HPV-16 and HPV-18 in OLP. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The research protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA2020) checklist. The online databases Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were searched using the following individual keywords: "OLP" OR "Oral Lichen Planus" OR "HPV" OR "Human Papillomavirus." The search strategy resulted in the selection of 80 articles. The articles were evaluated, and after duplication removal, 53 abstracts were reviewed, resulting in the selection of 25 studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias assessment was done by using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The overall prevalence of HPV in OLP lesions varied from 2.7% to 70%, depending on the type of diagnostic method used. CONCLUSION: Despite the studies conducted on the relationship between OLP and HPV infection, there is still no conclusive evidence that HPV can play a role in the etiopathogenesis of OLP, either in clinical manifestations or in the malignant transformation of lesions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".