Prevalence of Xerostomia in Population‐based Samples: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consequences of xerostomia on oral health have been studied for decades; however, the actual prevalence of this disorder on the general population remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of xerostomia in population-based samples. Electronic databases were screened for relevant articles and reference lists of pertinent articles were also hand-searched. Thirteen articles meeting the final inclusion criteria were identified. Based on the definition of xerostomia used in this review, only publications including a subjective diagnosis of the disorder were included. All of the self-reported diagnoses were achieved through a questionnaire either by mail, telephone, interview or self-administered by the patient. There was a variation across papers regarding number and content of the questions as well as guidelines for the diagnosis of xerostomia (i.e. answer yes to one or more than one question). The prevalence of xerostomia in the selected articles ranged from 0.9% to 64.8%. The majority of these studies were performed in Scandinavia. In 9 of the articles, the studied samples were 50 years and older. None of the studies evaluated the prevalence xerostomia among individuals younger than 18 years. Based on these observations, it can be concluded that there is a need for population-based studies on prevalence of xerostomia in regions other than Scandinavia. A standardized protocol to diagnose xerostomia needs to be developed. Patient-perceived treatment needs and impact on quality of life should be included to have a complete picture of public health implications of the disease.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".