Periodontitis in non‐smoking type 1 diabetic adults: a cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare levels of periodontitis in non-smoking type 1 diabetic patients and controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Type 1 diabetic patients, aged 20-55 years, were recruited from outpatient clinics at five hospitals in Glasgow, UK. Control subjects were recruited from physiotherapy clinics, using the buddy system and through an advertisement in a free newspaper. The primary outcome was severe periodontitis defined by clinical attachment level ≥6 mm on ≥1 tooth. RESULTS: There were 34 well controlled patients (HbA1c ≤ 7.5%), 169 poorly controlled patients and 112 non-diabetic subjects. Prevalence of severe periodontitis was higher in all type 1 diabetic patients [24.1% (95% CI: 18.4-30.6%)] and poorly controlled patients [27.2% (20.7-34.6%)] than in controls [20.5% (13.5-29.2%)]. The fully adjusted odds ratios (ORs) in never smokers comparing the whole diabetic group, and the poorly controlled group, with the control group were 1.35 [0.66-2.8] (p = 0.41) and 1.58 [0.75-3.33] (p = 0.23), respectively. Mean clinical attachment level was higher in all type 1 diabetic and poorly controlled patients than in controls (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate worse periodontal health in type 1 diabetic patients than in control subjects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the UKCRN, ID: 9314 and Scottish Diabetes Research Network registration number: 128.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".