The Relationship Between Smokeless Tobacco and the Incidence of Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many studies have examined the association between smokeless tobacco and the risk of oral cancer. In South and Southeastern Asia, the use of smokeless tobacco, which increases the risk of oral cancer, is very common. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of studies conducted and published in a period of ten years to provide a more accurate assessment of the association between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer. Methods: An electronic search in six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library) was conducted using keywords equivalent to oral cancer and smokeless tobacco. After selecting the articles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 30 prospective cohort and case-control studies from 2010 to 2020, which investigated the association of smokeless tobacco with oral cancer, were examined. The articles were qualitatively assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment scale checklist. Then, study design (study type, setting, and duration of data collection), sample population (number, gender, and age), cancer type, smokeless tobacco type, effect size, and confounder adjustment were extracted from the studies. Findings: Five studies examined smokeless tobacco and chewing tobacco, and 25 studies reported and evaluated the type of smokeless tobacco, most of which were related to betel quid and supari. While the results of 21 studies revealed a positive and significant relationship between oral cancer and smokeless tobacco use (OR: 0.67-149.5), seven studies did not find a significant correlation. Conclusion: This systematic review confirms the positive and significant association between non-smoking tobacco use 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".