Gastroesophageal reflux, dental erosion, and halitosis in epidemiological surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In published studies, it has been suggested that dental wear is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This systematic review was carried out to evaluate the association of GERD, dental erosion, and halitosis and to compare the indices adopted in epidemiological surveys. The Medline database (until October, 2011) was searched systematically to identify studies evaluating the prevalence of oral alterations, such as dental erosion and halitosis, in patients with GERD symptoms. Two reviewers analyzed all reports and the selected studies were evaluated according to the quality of evidence, using the validated Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Full-text copies of a total of 32 publications were obtained in duplicate. Sixteen publications were identified among the citations in the Bibliographic lists of studies that fulfilled the exclusion/inclusion criteria and quality of evidence. The relationship between dental erosion and GERD patients was significant in only seven studies. According to three studies, halitosis could be one of several extraesophageal symptoms or manifestations in GERD patients. In one study, it was found that the mucosa of GERD patients was significantly more acidic in comparison with that of the control group. This systematic review showed that there is a relationship between GERD and oral diseases (dental erosion and halitosis). The epidemiological surveys used different indices to analyze GERD and dental erosion. Further research could investigate the best method for assessing the two diseases.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".