A systematic review and meta‐analysis of epidemiologic observational evidence on the effect of periodontitis on diabetes An update of the <scp>EFP</scp>‐<scp>AAP</scp> review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To update the available evidence on the impact of periodontitis on diabetes control, incidence and complications. METHODS: Observational studies on the effect of periodontitis on diabetes, published after 2012, were identified through electronic databases and hand-searched journals. Findings were summarized by evidence tables, using PRISMA statement. Quality of the included studies was evaluated through the Newcastle Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Healthy individuals with periodontitis exhibit a poor glycaemic control and a higher risk of developing diabetes. Individuals affected by diabetes show a deterioration of glycaemic control if also affected by periodontitis and significantly higher prevalence of diabetes-related complications. Limited evidence is available on gestational diabetes and type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Periodontitis has a significant impact on diabetes control, incidence and complications. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity and quality of the included publications suggest that caution should be exercised when interpreting the data and that there remains an important need for additional evidence.
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 | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".