MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417458229 · doi:10.1111/cdoe.70046

Oral Health—Head and Neck Cancers: Addressing Confounding Through Negative Control and Quantitative Bias Analyses

2025· article· en· W4417458229 on OpenAlexafffundabout
P. Elango, Belinda Nicolau, Nada J. Farsi, Audrey V. Grant, Marie Rousseau, Sreenath Madathil

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistère de l'Économie, de l’Innovation et des Exportations du Québec
KeywordsConfoundingAffect (linguistics)Association (psychology)Negative controlSelection biasCase-control study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: While there are plausible biological explanations for the association between oral health and head and neck cancers (HNC), existing studies have yielded conflicting results. A key concern is that these associations are influenced by mediators, unmeasured risk factors, and biases. To address this, a negative control exposure was used to evaluate whether the associations between oral health and HNC risk could be attributed to unmeasured confounding. Additionally, quantitative bias analysis (QBA) was performed to estimate the extent of non-differential misclassification of exposure. METHODS: The HeNCe study, a hospital-based case-control study, recruited incident HNC cases (n = 389) frequency matched to controls (n = 429) by sex and age (within 5 years) from four major referral hospitals in Montreal, Canada. In-person interviews collected information on life course exposures. Unconditional logistic regression estimated the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between oral health indicators and HNC, controlling for confounders identified using directed acyclic graphs (DAG). Sexually transmitted diseases (STD) were used as a negative control exposure to test for unmeasured confounding in the associations. QBA, using predetermined bias parameters from previous studies, estimated the magnitude and direction of exposure misclassification bias. RESULTS: Complete denture use and having more than nine missing teeth were associated with an increased HNC risk [OR = 1.33, 95% CI (0.93-1.90) & OR = 1.31, 95% CI (0.93-1.83)], respectively. Similar results were obtained when stratified by HNC subsite. Negative control analysis yielded a null finding, indicating no significant bias due to unmeasured confounders. Bias-corrected estimates of the association between oral health indicators and HNC risk moved further from the null. CONCLUSION: Negative control exposure analysis indicated that unmeasured confounding did not affect the association between oral health and HNC risk. QBA yielded corrected estimates of increased magnitude, suggesting that the crude associations may have been underestimated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.454
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Dentistry And Oral EpidemiologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207