Association between Diabetes Mellitus and Oral Cancer - A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM), particularly Type 2, has been associated with several cancers. However, its link with oral cancer (OC) remains uncertain due to conflicting evidence. Given the global prevalence of both conditions, understanding their association is important for clinical and public health planning. Objective: To systematically evaluate the association between DM and the risk of OC in adults. Methodology: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar was conducted for studies published between January 1994 and August 2023. Eligible studies included observational designs (case-control and cohort) comparing OC outcomes in diabetic and nondiabetic populations. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I ² statistic. Results: Twelve observational studies with over 300,000 participants were included. The pooled analysis showed a significant association between diabetes and increased risk of OC (pooled odds ratio = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.15–1.52). High heterogeneity was observed ( I ² = 98%). Systematic reviews were excluded from the meta-analysis to prevent duplication. Variability in geography and diagnostic criteria were identified as possible sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion: This review suggests a modest but significant association between DM and OC risk. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of diabetes duration, glycemic control, and medication use. Oral cancer screening may be considered in diabetic care protocols.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".