MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402519141 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics14182033

The Diagnostic Potential of Non-Invasive Tools for Oral Cancer and Precancer: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4402519141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Vanessa Pierfelice, Emira D’Amico, Chiara Cinquini, Giovanna Iezzi, Camillo D’Arcangelo, Simonetta D’Ercole, Morena Petrini

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to analyse the published evidence for the use of non-invasive methods for the early detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs). METHODS: The literature was systematically searched through several databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Additional exploration was performed through cross-checks on the bibliographies of selected reviews. The inclusion criteria involved studies assessing the application of non-invasive tests on humans in the screening, diagnosis, or surveillance of OSCC or OPMDs and reporting sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was applied to assess the quality of the studies included. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 8012 preliminary records. After a duplicate check, 116 titles remained. After abstract analysis, 70 papers remained. After full text analysis, only 54 of the 70 papers fit the inclusion criteria (28 were original articles and 26 were reviews). Those 26 reviews were used to manually search for further original articles. From this last search, 33 original articles were found. Thus, a total of 61 original studies were included and investigated. Findings from this systematic review indicate useful information, such as a description of the mechanisms, ease of use, limitations, and SE and SP values, to drive the choice of the optimal minimally invasive method to be utilized as an adjunctive tool to examine the suspicious lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the analysed tools can be improved or implemented, considering their high SE and low SP. Despite advancements, incisional biopsy continues to be the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of oral cancer and precancerous lesions. Further research and development are essential to improving the sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of non-invasive tools for widespread clinical application.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207