Periodontal Disease is Not Associated With Preeclampsia in Canadian Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The findings from the studies on the relationship between periodontal disease and preeclampsia are inconsistent. The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between periodontal disease and preeclampsia. METHODS: A multicenter case-control study was conducted in Quebec, Canada. Preeclampsia was defined as blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg and ≥1+ proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation. Periodontitis was defined as the presence of ≥4 sites with a probing depth ≥5 mm and a clinical attachment loss ≥3 mm at the same sites. RESULTS: A total of 92 preeclamptic women and 245 controls were analyzed. The percentage of periodontal disease was 18.5% in preeclamptic women and 19.2% in normotensive women (crude odds ratio [OR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52 to 1.77). After adjusting for confounding variables, periodontitis remained not associated with preeclampsia (adjusted OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.59 to 2.17). CONCLUSION: This study does not support the hypothesis of an association between periodontal disease and preeclampsia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".