Oral cancer screening

1 paper1 finding

C, W, M, H: cells, worms or flies, mice, humans. Dark: independent labs found the same change there. Light: one lab or one study. Outline: nothing yet.

Labs are independent when their papers share no last author and no institution.

Against: findings that point the other way from most findings on the same outcome.

On aging: the drug’s trials ARN judged to be about aging, of every trial that tests it for any use.

No results posted: trials that ended more than a year ago with no results on ClinicalTrials.gov and no paper in ARN’s record.

Company ties: findings with an author at a company, or from a paper whose competing-interests statement declares ties to one.

1 lab in 1 country

Human trial1

Associations

Prevalent oral cancer detection

upin humans1

1 study

Oral cancer screening predicts prevalent oral cancer detection in humans (Sensitivity 89.2%; PPV 1.55%; NPV 99.96%).
“Visual-inspection over 2 consecutive screens (median=3.5 years apart [IQR=2.9-3.9]) had sensitivity=89.2%, PPV=1.55%, and NPV=99.96% for prevalent oral cancers (n = 83).”
HumansEver-chewers/smokers/alcohol drinkersVisual inspectionoral cavityTwo consecutive screensMedian 3.5 years between screensn = 28,821
Two negative oral cancer screens could allow 10-year gaps
Journal of the National Cancer Institute7 Oct 2026

Latest

1 in 12 months

Journal of the National Cancer Institute7 Oct

Two negative oral cancer screens could allow 10-year gaps

Over 11 years, oral cancer developed in 4.13% of people positive on both screens versus 0.13% of those negative on both.Over 11 years, oral cancer developed in 4.13% of people positive on both screens versus 0.13% of those negative on both.

Cohort study of 41,225 peopleOral cancer

Paper

Oral cancer screening

Associations

Latest

Two negative oral cancer screens could allow 10-year gaps

Related