Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 651

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems: predictive value, utility, weaknesses and scope for improvement

Warnakulasuriya, S., Reibel, J., Bouquot, J., Dabelsteen, E.·2008·Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine

Abstract

At a workshop coordinated by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer and Precancer in the United Kingdom issues related to potentially malignant disorders of the oral cavity were discussed by an expert group. The consensus views of the Working Group are presented in a series of papers. In this report, we review the oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems. The three classification schemes [oral epithelial dysplasia scoring system, squamous intraepithelial neoplasia and Ljubljana classification] were presented and the Working Group recommended epithelial dysplasia grading for routine use. Although most oral pathologists possibly recognize and accept the criteria for grading epithelial dysplasia, firstly based on architectural features and then of cytology, there is great variability in their interpretation of the presence, degree and significance of the individual criteria. Several studies have shown great interexaminer and intraexaminer variability in the assessment of the presence or absence and the grade of oral epithelial dysplasia. The Working Group considered the two class classification (no/questionable/ mild – low risk; moderate or severe – implying high risk) and was of the view that reducing the number of choices from 3 to 2 may increase the likelihood of agreement between pathologists. The utility of this need to be tested in future studies. The variables that are likely to affect oral epithelial dysplasia scoring were discussed and are outlined here; these need to be researched in longitudinal studies to explore the biological significance of a low‐risk or high‐risk dysplasia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00584.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 651

Metadata

Authors
Warnakulasuriya, S., Reibel, J., Bouquot, J., & Dabelsteen, E.
Venue
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-02-03
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
127-133
ISSN
  • 0300-9777 (ISSN-L)
  • 0904-2512
  • 1600-0714
OpenAlex
W1815338083
Cited by
651
References
0
FWCI
35.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems: predictive value, utility, weaknesses and scope for improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00584.x
The paper
Warnakulasuriya, S., Reibel, J., Bouquot, J., & Dabelsteen, E. (2008). Oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems: predictive value, utility, weaknesses and scope for improvement. Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00584.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.