Periodontitis and incident type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate periodontitis as a risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a group of men aged 58-72 years. METHODS: One thousand three hundred and thirty-one dentate, diabetes-free men in Northern Ireland underwent a detailed periodontal examination during 2001-2003. Follow-up was by bi-annual questionnaire and for those reporting diabetes their general medical practitioner was contacted to validate diabetes type, treatment and diagnosis date. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to estimate the effect of periodontitis on incident diabetes. Multivariable analysis included adjustment for various known confounders. RESULTS: The mean age of the men was 63.7 (SD 3.0) years. There were 80 cases (6.0%) of incident T2DM. Follow-up was for a median period of 7.8 years (IQR 6.7-8.3). After adjusting for confounding variables, the hazard ratio (HR) for incident T2DM in men with moderate/severe periodontitis versus those with no/mild periodontitis was 1.69 (95% CI 1.06-2.69), p = 0.03. CONCLUSION: There was evidence in this homogenous group of dentate men, that those with moderate to severe periodontitis had a significantly increased risk of incident T2DM.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".