The association between head and cervical posture and temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To carry out a systematic review to assess the evidence concerning the association between head and cervical posture and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: A search of Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted in all languages with the help of a health sciences librarian. Key words used in the search were posture, head posture, cervical spine or neck, vertebrae, cervical lordosis, craniomandibular disorders or temporomandibular disorders, temporomandibular disorders, and orofacial pain or facial pain. Abstracts which appeared to fulfill the initial selection criteria were selected by consensus. The original articles were retrieved and evaluated to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. A methodological checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the selected articles and their references were hand-searched for possible missing articles. RESULTS: Twelve studies met all inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail for their methodology and information quality. Nine articles that analyzed the association between head posture and TMD included patients with mixed TMD diagnosis; 1 article differentiated among muscular, articular, and mixed symptomatology; and 3 articles analyzed information from patients with only articular problems. Finally, 2 studies evaluated the association between head posture and TMD in patients with muscular TMD. Several methodological defects were noted in the 12 studies. CONCLUSION: Since most of the studies included in this systematic review were of poor methodological quality, the findings of the studies should be interpreted with caution. The association between intra-articular and muscular TMD and head and cervical posture is still unclear, and better controlled studies with comprehensive TMD diagnoses, greater sample sizes, and objective posture evaluation are necessary.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it