Orofacial consequences of systemic sclerosis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orofacial involvement is common and often understated in the treatment clinical guidelines of systemic sclerosis. It impairs daily life by having repercussions on comfort, nutrition, aesthetics and self-confidence. This review aimed at describing exhaustively the different orofacial consequences of systemic sclerosis. A systematic search was conducted using four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source and SCOPUS) up to December 2016 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Grey literature and hand search were also included. To be eligible for the inclusion, studies needed to meet the following criteria: randomised controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, pilot studies or cohort studies and full text available in English or French, with abstract. The studies had to concern at least 30 patients suffering from systemic sclerosis and having clinical and radiological oropharyngeal examination. The diagnosis of systemic sclerosis had to be determined according to precise recommendations; the retrieved oropharyngeal manifestations had to affect hard or soft tissues of the mouth and/or pharynx and needed to be evaluated with clinical measures. Study selection, risk bias assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa scale) and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The retrieved features were microstomia and xerostomia associated with real hyposialia, temporomandibular joint symptoms, high caries experience, periodontal diseases as well as an increased risk of oral cavity and pharynx cancer. Early diagnosis enabling early management, prevention and oral hygiene is the key to avoid complicated and invasive procedures. Studies with higher level of evidence remain necessary to create standardised protocols.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".