Periodontal status and clinical outcomes in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify clinical outcomes following kidney transplantation associated with periodontal status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and included cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies published until August 2018 from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, and CENTRAL. The research was carried out using the following descriptors: "kidney transplantation," "chronic renal failure," "periodontal diseases," "periodontitis," "chronic periodontitis," "gingival hyperplasia," and "gingivitis." The outcomes comprised the clinical transplantation variables. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The electronic search revealed 1,063 potentially relevant studies. We selected 114 articles for reading the full text. Therefore, six studies met the inclusion criteria: one case-control, three cross-sectional, and two cohort studies. All studies showed low risk of bias. The findings suggest that the periodontal status may be associated with the largest left ventricular mass, greater carotid thickness, graft rejection, lower graft survival, and a higher mortality rate within 60 months among kidney transplant recipients. CONCLUSION: The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is an association between periodontal status and worsening of graft function and systemic health among kidney transplant recipients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".