Association between periodontal health and oral cancer in a sample of subjects from India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Oral cancer is among the most common cancers in the world. Its major risk factors are smoking, alcohol consumption, and HPV infections; and in India betel quid chewing, beedi smoking, and smokeless tobacco consumption. India has the highest incidence of oral cancer in the world, with more than 69,000 new cases reported each year. Although recent studies have shown an association between poor periodontal heath and oral cancer, no studies have assessed this association in the Indian population. Objectives: To estimate the extent to which poor periodontal health is a risk factor for oral cancer and to examine how much of this association is explained by smoking status of the subject. Furthermore, we investigate whether this association varies by anatomical sub-sites within the oral cavity. Methodology: The data for this analysis was drawn from a hospital-based case-control study– HeNCe Life (Head and Neck Cancer Life course) study -Indian site. Two hundred and ninety three newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma cases in the mouth at stages I-IV and 314 non-cancer control subjects were recruited from Government Dental and Medical Colleges. Data pertaining to behavioural habits, socioeconomic position, oral health, diet and family environment were collected using a standardized questionnaire and a life grid technique. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: After adjusting for the effects of covariates including sex, age, behavioural habits, socioeconomic position and oral hygiene, preliminary analysis showed that periodontal health was associated with oral cancer risk. Males subjects with severe periodontal disease had an increased risk of oral cancer (odds ratios (OR) =2.53; 95% confidence intervals (CI):1.15–5.56) when compared to subjects with normal periodontium. This association was only apparent among those subjects who were smokers (OR=2.74; 95% CI: 1.16 – 6.47) and in sub-site gum (OR=3.35, 95% CI: 1.39-8.03). Discussion: Our results suggest an association between periodontal health and oral cancer risk. The association seems to be stronger among smokers and in sub-site gum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".