Perceived sleep quality among edentulous elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anatomical changes associated with edentulism are thought to disturb seniors' sleep. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine sleep quality and daytime sleepiness of edentulous elders. (2) To examine the association between oral health-related quality of life and sleep quality. METHODS: Data were collected at a 1-year follow-up from 173 healthy edentulous elders who had participated in a randomised controlled trial and randomly received two types of mandibular prosthesis. Subjective sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI, range 0-21), with higher scores indicating poorer sleep quality. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was used to measure the level of perceived daytime sleepiness, and scores ≥10 indicated sleepiness. RESULTS: The mean global PSQI and ESS scores were 4.7 ± 3.5 and 5.3 ± 3.9. There were no differences in sleep quality or sleepiness between those who wore their dentures at night and those who did not. Elders with frequent denture problems were sleepier during the day than those with fewer problems (p = 0.0034). General health (p = 0.02) and oral health-related quality of life (p = 0.001) are significant predictors of sleep quality. CONCLUSION: Healthy edentulous elders, independent of nocturnal wearing of their prosthesis, are good sleepers. Maintaining high oral health quality of life could contribute to better sleep.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".