Salivary and serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase in oral submucous fibrosis: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The occurrence of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is often accompanied by an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. In this meta-analysis, we compared the salivary and serum levels of LDH levels between OSF patients and controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the establishment of the database to June 2023, and the quality of the studies was checked by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale. The mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were retrieved from the database, and we included 5 studies in this meta-analysis. The salivary LDH level of OSF patients was higher than healthy controls (MD: 423.10 pg/L 95%CI: 276.42-569.77 pg/mL, P < .00001), the serum LDH level of OSF patients was also higher than that of healthy controls (MD: 226.20 pg/mL, 95%CI: 147.71-304.69 pg/mL, P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that salivary and serum LDH levels were higher in OSF patients than in healthy controls, suggesting that LDH may be a potential biomarker for OSF.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".