All‐cause mortality and periodontitis in 60–70‐year‐old men: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between periodontitis and mortality from all causes in a prospective study in a homogenous group of 60- to 70-year-old West European men. METHODOLOGY: A representative sample of 1400 dentate men, (mean age 63.8, SD 3.0 years), drawn from the population of Northern Ireland, had a comprehensive periodontal examination between 2001 and 2003. Men were divided into thirds on the basis of their mean periodontal attachment loss (PAL). The primary endpoint, death from any cause, was analysed using Kaplan-Meier survival plots and Cox's proportional hazards model. RESULTS: In total, 152 (10.9%) of the men died during a mean follow-up of 8.9 (SD 0.7) years; 37 (7.9%) men in the third with the lowest PAL (<1.8 mm) died compared with 73 (15.7%) in the third with the highest PAL (>2.6 mm). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death in the men with the highest level of PAL compared with those with the lowest PAL was 2.11 (95% CI 1.42-3.14), p < 0.0001. After adjustment for confounding variables (age, smoking, hypertension, BMI, diabetes, cholesterol, education, marital status and previous history of a cardiovascular event) the HR was 1.57 (1.04-2.36), p = 0.03. CONCLUSION: The European men in this prospective cohort study with the most severe loss of periodontal attachment were at an increased risk of death compared with those with the lowest loss of periodontal attachment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".