Controversies regarding oral lichen planus and lichenoid-dysplastic lesions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is an immune-mediated condition featuring chronic inflammation. The World Health Organization classifies OLP as potentially malignant, but it is believed that the malignant transformation of OLP occurs in lesions with both lichenoid and dysplastic features (LD). This review discusses the issues surrounding OLP and LD, including their malignancy, classification, and categorization, and whether lichenoid inflammation causes dysplastic changes in LD or vice versa. Methods: English full-text literature on OLP, LD and/or dysplasia was retrieved from PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Results: Thirty-six publications including original research articles, reviews, meta-analyses, books, reports, letters, and editorials were selected for review. Discussion: Research suggests that OLP has malignant potential, although small, and that LD should not be disregarded, as dysplasia presenting with or without lichenoid features may develop into cancer. There is also disagreement over the classification and categorization of LD. Different terms have been used to classify these lesions, including lichenoid dysplasia, OLP with dysplasia, and dysplasia with lichenoid features. Moreover, in LD, it is not clear if dysplasia or lichenoid infiltration appears first, and if inflammation is a response to dysplasia or if dysplasia is a response to the persistent inflammation. The main limitation in the literature is the inconsistency and subjective nature of histological diagnoses, which can lead to interobserver and intraobserver variation, ultimately resulting in the inaccurate diagnosis of OLP and LD. Conclusion: Although further research is required to understand OLP and LD, both lesions should be considered potentially malignant and should not be disregarded.
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 | 0.032 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".