RANK, RANKL, and OPG in Dentigerous Cyst, Odontogenic Keratocyst, and Ameloblastoma: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to assess and compare RANK, RANKL, and OPG immunoexpression in dentigerous cyst, odontogenic keratocyst, and ameloblastoma. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018105543). Seven databases (Embase, Lilacs, LIVIVO, PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, and Web of Science) were the primary search sources and two databases (Open Grey and Open Thesis) partially captured the “grey literature”. Only cross sectional studies were included. The JBI Checklist assessed the risk of bias. A meta-analysis with random effects model estimated the values from the OPG and RANKL ratio reported by the individual studies and respective 95% confidence intervals. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed with I2 statistics. Only nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered in the analyses. The studies were published from 2008 to 2018. Two studies presented low risk of bias, while seven studies presented moderate risk. The meta-analysis showed the highest OPG>RANKL ratio for dentigerous cyst (ES=43.3%; 95% CI=14.3-74.8) and odontogenic keratocyst (ES=36.8%; 95% CI=18.8-56.7). In contrast, the highest OPG
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.726 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".