Individual oral symptoms in burning mouth syndrome may be associated differentially with depression and anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is an idiopathic disease characterized by the feeling of burning in the oral cavity. Ten per cent of patients presenting to oral medicine clinics have BMS. Anxiety and depression are common co-morbidities in BMS, but it is not known if they are associated with specific BMS symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In an exploratory analysis, this study examined the association of generalized anxiety and depression with individual BMS symptoms. METHODS: Forty-one patients were recruited from a dental outpatient clinic (30 with BMS and 11 with other oral conditions), evaluating specific BMS symptoms and their intensity. Anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed using a standardized measure (Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised). RESULTS: Taste change (p = 0.007), fear of serious illness (p = 0.011), metallic taste (p = 0.018) and sensation of a film on the gums (p = 0.047) were associated with an excess of psychiatric symptoms. More specifically, metallic taste (coefficient = 0.497, 95% CI = 0.149-0.845; p = 0.006) and sensation of film on gums (coefficient = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.148-1.103; p = 0.012) were associated significantly with higher scores for depressive symptoms; taste change (coefficient = 0.269, 95% CI = 0.077-0.461; p = 0.007), bad breath (coefficient = 0.273, 95% CI = 0.065-0.482; p = 0.012) and fear of serious illness (coefficient = 0.242, 95% CI = 0.036-0.448; p = 0.023) were associated with higher anxiety scores. CONCLUSION: Specific BMS symptoms are associated differentially with generalized anxiety and depression. Dental practitioners should ascertain which BMS symptoms are predominant and be mindful of the association of certain symptoms with anxiety or depression and, where necessary, consider medical consultation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".