Use of Dental Practices for the Identification of Adults With Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus or Nondiabetic Hyperglycemia: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing global health burden and is expected to affect more than 590 million people by the year 2035. Evidence exists to demonstrate that dental settings have been used for risk assessment and identification of individuals who may be at high risk for T2DM or who may already unknowingly have the condition. OBJECTIVE: This protocol aims to outline the methodology that will be undertaken to synthesize the literature relating to the use of primary care (nonhospital-based) dental services for the identification of undiagnosed T2DM or prediabetes-often termed nondiabetic hyperglycemia-in adult patients. METHODS: This paper outlines the protocol that will be followed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. The protocol outlines the aims, objectives, search strategy, data extraction and data management methods, as well as the statistical analysis plan. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines were followed in developing the protocol as were elements of the Cochrane handbook. RESULTS: We expect the systematic review to be completed within 18 months of publication of this protocol and expect to see a high degree of heterogeneity in the existing literature. CONCLUSIONS: This review is of importance as it will synthesize the existing evidence base and inform future studies in the field. Following the publication of the protocol, the review will be registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Following the completion of the review, results will be published in a suitable peer-reviewed journal. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/11843.
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 | 0.083 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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".