Is Periodontal Disease Associated with Alzheimer's Disease? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last decade, several observational studies have suggested that there exists an association between periodontal disease (PD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether or not this link exists. SUMMARY: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline for systematic review was used and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016035377). The search strategy included using electronic databases and by hand searching articles published up to January 2016. MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched by 2 independent reviewers. Observational studies including patients meeting criteria for both AD and PD were eligible to be included in the analysis. Quality assessment of selected studies was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. From a total of 550 titles and abstracts, 5 studies were included (2 cross-sectional, 2 case-control and one cohort study) in the review. A fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the presence of PD is associated with the presence of AD (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21-2.35). When only severe forms of PD were evaluated, a significant association was also observed (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.58-5.62). Key Messages: In the present review, a significant association was observed between PD and AD. Further studies should be carried out in order to investigate the direction of the association and factors that may confound it.
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 | 0.026 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".