MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729988983 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.05.004

Dental care utilization in patients with different types of dementia: A longitudinal nationwide study of 58,037 individuals

2017· article· en· W2729988983 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed‐Mohammad Fereshtehnejad, Sara García‐Ptacek, Dorota Religa, Jacob Holmer, Kåre Buhlin, Maria Eriksdotter, Gunilla Sandborgh‐Englund

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSveriges Kommuner och LandstingSwedish Brain PowerVetenskapsrådetStockholms Läns Landsting
KeywordsDementiaDiscontinuationMedicineLongitudinal studyParkinsonismDental careCognitionGerontologyTooth lossOral healthPsychiatryDentistryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dementia may be associated with discontinuation of regular dental checkups, which in turn results in poorer oral health. METHODS: We investigated the trend of change in dental care utilization and the number of teeth before and after being diagnosed with dementia. Longitudinal cognitive- and dental health-related information were merged using data on 58,037 newly diagnosed individuals from the Swedish Dementia Registry and Swedish Dental Health Register during 2007 to 2015. RESULTS: Following dementia diagnosis, rate of dental care visits significantly declined. Individuals with mixed dementia, dementia with parkinsonism, and those with more severe and faster cognitive impairment had significantly higher rate of decline in dental care utilization. Vascular dementia and lower baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score were significant predictors of faster loss of teeth. DISCUSSION: Dental care utilization markedly declines following dementia diagnosis. The reduction is more prominent in those with rapid progressive cognitive impairment and the ones with extra frailty burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207