BURNING MOUTH COMPLAINTS: CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A BRAZILIAN SAMPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the clinical characteristics of burning mouth complaints (BMC) in a series of Brazilian patients referred to a large teaching hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 66 patients with burning mouth complaints were evaluated through a standardized protocol. RESULTS: 56 women and 10 men were examined, ranging in age from 35-83 years. The primary location of the complaints was reported to be the tongue. Thirty-six patients reported a precipitating event. The mean VAS pain levels were 7.5 in women and 6.11 in men. The average estradiol levels in women were low (<13 pg/ml); 80% of all patients reported a concomitant chronic disease, 55% of all patients wore total dentures, 54% of all patients reported subjective xerostomia, 48% of all patients reported sleep disturbances and 66% reported phantom taste. No statistical differences were found between groups with or without a precipitating event in VAS: (p=0.139), in the Number of Words Chosen (NWC) (p=0.259) and Pain Rating Index (PRI) (p=0.276) sections of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). CONCLUSION: The existence of systemic comorbidities, self-reported sleep disturbances and taste alterations indicates possible correlations and the need for a careful systemic evaluation of each patient; there were no differences between patients with and without precipitating events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".