Oral health of hemodialysis patients: A cross‐sectional study at two <scp>G</scp>erman dialysis centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the oral hygiene behavior and state of oral health of hemodialysis (HD) patients in Germany. HD patients attending two dialysis centers were asked to participate in the study. Anamneses and oral hygiene behavior were recorded in a questionnaire. Dental examination included the dental status (DMF-T) and the degree of gingival inflammation (PDI: Periodontol Disease Index). Of 129 patients contacted, 54 (42%), aged 63.9 ± 13.0 years (23 women and 31 men), took part in the study. At an average, dialysis was required for 4.1 years. The cause of terminal renal failure was glomerulonephritis in 30% of patients and diabetic nephropathy in 22% of patients. Since dialysis therapy, 63% of the patients (n = 34) only visited a dentist when they had complaints. In 46 cases (85%), the dentist had been informed about the patient's requirement for dialysis, and in most cases (70%), the dental treatment took place on the day after dialysis. The mean DMF-T of the HD patients was 22.1 ± 6.5. The proportion of carious teeth was low (D-T: 0.7 ± 1.2), of missing teeth (M-T) high (16.2 ± 9.3). The median degree of gingival inflammation (PDI) was 1. Availing themselves of dental treatment after patients needed to have dialysis was mostly "complaint oriented." In addition to a high proportion of missing teeth, a good level of restoration of caries was found. The gingiva showed only a low level of inflammatory changes.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".