Masticatory ability with depression, anxiety, and stress: Does there exist any association?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Masticatory ability as a subjective response to masticatory function indicates patients' perception of their mastication. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study on association between masticatory ability and psychological status. This study investigated the association between self-assessed masticatory ability (SAMA) and psychological status among a large sample of Iranian adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, data were extracted from 4135 adults who had been completed information in 20 counties across Isfahan province regarding masticatory ability and psychological statuses (depression, anxiety, and stress). An SAMA questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and General Health Questionnaire were used to measure masticatory ability, depression and anxiety, and stress of study population. To analyze the data, ANOVA, χ(2) test, and multinomial regression were applied at 0.05 for the significance level. RESULTS: Masticatory ability was significantly correlated with depression (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.001), and stress (P < 0.001). The participants in high masticatory ability group reported lower scores for presence of these psychological variables. Furthermore, males reported significantly higher level for masticatory ability than females (P = 0.025). In addition, there were significant association between low and moderate masticatory ability with anxiety (1.09, 1.08), depression (1.15, 1.13), and stress (1.11, 1.09), respectively. The association was still significant after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, and marital status. CONCLUSION: Despite study limitations, the results of this study provide evidence that participants with higher score of depression, anxiety, and stress suffer lower masticatory ability.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".