Association between apical periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review was conducted to assess the association between apical periodontitis (AP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Studies published from the earliest date available until September 2015 were retrieved from the Medline, PubMed and Embase databases. The included studies reported the results from observational studies and assessed the link between AP and CVD as confirmed by one of the following criteria: diagnosed coronary artery disease, angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or mortality caused by cardiac pathology. The study characteristics were abstracted by independent researchers following the PRISMA standard protocol. NOS criteria were used to rate the quality of the studies, and the GRADE was used for level of evidence evaluation. Nineteen epidemiological studies fulfilled the predetermined inclusion criteria: 10 case-control studies, five cross-sectional studies and four cohort studies. There was considerable heterogeneity amongst the included studies in terms of their study design, population, outcomes of interest and AP evaluation methods. Considering the limited availability and the heterogeneity amongst the studies, meta-analysis was not attempted. Thirteen of the 19 included studies found a significant positive association between apical periodontitis and cardiovascular disease, although in two of them, the significance was present only in univariate analysis. Five studies failed to reveal positive significance, and one study reported a negative association. In conclusion, although most of the published studies found a positive association between apical periodontitis and cardiovascular disease, the quality of the existing evidence is moderate-low and a causal relationship cannot be established.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".