Comparative efficacy of photodynamic therapy for periodontal disease between genders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM:To evaluate potential gender differences in response to a new photodynamic treatment for patients with periodontal diseases in a randomized,controlled and blinded clinical trial.METHDOS:Forty-five subjects(each with ≥4 sites of periodontal pocket depth ≥5 mm in ≥2 quadrants) were enrolled in this Ethics Committee-approved study.After baseline examination all subjects received SRP(subgingival scaling and root planning)and were then randomly assigned to one of three groups.Group A received one Periowave photodynamic treatment(Ondine Biopharma Corp.,Vancouver,BC) after SRP,while Group B had one Periowave treatment after SRP and again at 6 weeks.Group C received SRP alone to serve as the control.Pocket depth and clinical attachment level(CAL) were measured at the baseline,at the 6th-week and 12ve-week visit.The data were analyzed for the between-gender effects using the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test.RESULTS:The gender distribution was comparable in all three groups(8 males /7 females each in the SRP and single-Periowave groups,and 7 males /8 females in the Periowave retreatment group).CAL increased 1.1 mm in both genders for all three groups at the 6th week and 12ve week.The increase of CAL was not significantly different between the genders at the 6th week.However,at the 12ve week,the CAL increase for male subjects(2.06 mm) was significantly higher(P=0.031) than that for females(1.61 mm) who received two Periowave treatments.When compared to female subjects,male subjects who received two Periowave treatments gained an additional 27.4% CAL on average.CONCLUSINS:Under conditions of the study,CAL in males with pocket depths ≥5 mm increased by 27.4% over females,after two photodynamic treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".