Improved oral hygiene and <i>Candida</i> species colonization level in geriatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This work consists in improving oral hygiene (OH) for elderly dependent people in long-term hospital care, in order to decrease the degree of colonization and the associated risk of developing oral candidiasis. As this population frequently suffers from such colonization and because it is difficult to install and practice OH care, a study protocol was designed at the request of geriatricians. The objective of the present study was to set up a programme of OH, applied by the care staff, and to monitor oral colonization of by Candida spp. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: We compared the levels of hygiene and Candida spp. colonization for a group of 110 long-term patients in geriatric departments at T1, when clinical data were collected and oral mycological samples taken before the OH protocol was applied, and at T2, during the postprotocol phase after 3 months of application, when the clinical data and sample collection were repeated. RESULTS: During these 3 months 11 patients died. These patients were excluded from the results, which are presented for matched series of the 99 patients still present at T2. Statistical analysis comparing the clinical and biological parameters at T1 and T2 established that there had been an improvement in OH: the 'adequate' level was reached for 72.4% of patients at T2 compared with 41.8% at T1 (P < 0.001) and the 'very inadequate' level was observed for 9.2% at T2 compared with 27.9% at T1 (P < 0.01). A reduction was observed in the number of patients showing the highest degree of C. albicans and C. glabrata colonization (> 50 colony forming units) from 41.9% at T1 to 24.9% at T2 (P < 0.05) and from 56.4% at T1 to 13.0% at T2 (P < 0.05) respectively. The number of patients with candidiasis fell significantly from 43.2% at T1 to 10.2% at T2. CONCLUSIONS: The OH protocol led to an overall decrease in Candida spp. colonization, a significant reduction in the number of candidiasis and an improvement in the level of oral and denture hygiene but vigilance is still necessary concerning OH care and the initial training of staff in specific care of the mouth.
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".