MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036020469 · doi:10.1111/jre.12251

Multiple tooth loss is associated with vascular cognitive impairment in subjects with acute ischemic stroke

2014· article· en· W2036020469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Junqing Zhu, X Li, Feiqi Zhu, Lichun Chen, Chunyan Zhang, Colman McGrath, Feifei He, Yu Hong Xiao, Lijian Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Periodontal Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTooth lossMedicineStroke (engine)DementiaInternal medicineLogistic regressionIschemic strokeCognitive impairmentCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCardiologyDentistryIschemiaPsychiatryOral health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Emerging evidence shows that tooth loss is associated with cognitive impairment and dementia. Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is a common consequence of ischemic stroke. This study investigated the association of tooth loss with VCI in patients with acute stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 161 subjects with acute ischemic stroke were recruited. Within 1 wk after admission, fasting blood tests were undertaken and the number of teeth present was recorded. VCI was evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: The patients with loss of ≥ 8 teeth exhibited significantly lower MoCA values as compared to those with loss of ≤ 7 teeth (13.2 ± 6.6 vs. 17.3 ± 6.0, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that loss of ≥ 8 teeth (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.2-7.9, p = 0.02) and stroke history (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.1-14.1, p = 0.04) were significantly associated with VCI (MoCA score ≤ 20.0). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the current findings provide the first evidence that multiple tooth loss is independently associated with VCI in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Periodontal ResearchSame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207