Polyomaviruses and the risk of oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Oral cancer (OC) is the most common malignant tumor of the head and neck (HN) and ranks 16th among the most frequently diagnosed cancers worldwide. A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide an evidence-based analysis of the relationship between polyomaviruses and oral cancer. METHODS: The global online databases was used to identify relevant studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. The quality of each article was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Data analysis was performed using STATA Ver. 11 software, and the standard error was calculated using the binomial distribution formula. The heterogeneity of the study results was assessed using the I-square and Q index, while publication bias was examined using the Begg's test. In addition, a random effects model was used to determine the risk difference (RD), and a forest plot diagram was used to present the results with 95% confidence intervals. The Trim and Fill test was applied to estimate publication bias, and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of individual studies on the overall estimate. RESULTS: Of the nine studies, the relationship between BK virus (BKV) and the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV) and oral cancer was investigated. In five primary studies, and by combining the results of these studies, the risk of oral cancer in MCV and BKV-positive individuals was significantly higher than in the negative groups by 13% (RD: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.26) and 2% (RD: 0.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.07), respectively. In addition, the association between JC virus (JCV) and oral cancer was investigated in six primary studies. By combining the results of these studies, the risk of oral cancer in JCV-positive individuals was 1% higher than that in JCV-negative individuals (RD: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.06). DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis showed that there was a significant association between MCV and oral cancer, and the risk of oral cancer in MCV- positive individuals was 13% higher than that in MCV- negative individuals. More preliminary studies are needed on the association between BKV and JCV and the risk of oral cancer.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".