Assessment of C-Reactive Protein Levels in Periodontal Patients Using a Standard Laboratory Procedure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: the aims of the randomized clinical trial were (i) to verify the association between periodontal disease and C-reactive protein (CRP) and (ii) to evaluate a possible reduction of serum CRP levels after non-surgical periodontal treatment. \nMethods: Thirty-two subjects, 18 affected by chronic periodontitis, and 14 periodontally healthy patients, aged between 21 and 65 (41± 13) were included. Clinical and radiographic examinations were used for each patient to obtain three dental indices that were used to evaluate severity of periodontal disease and changes after treatment. Periodontal patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups for different treatments: special oral hygiene instructions alone or in combination with scaling and root planing. Blood samples were taken for measurement of CRP levels and eritrosedimentation rate before and after treatment. \nResults: a reduction of clinical index CPSS was observed for both groups of periodontal patients after treatment but there were no statistically significant differences for CRP and ESR at baseline and between baseline and reexamination. Non statistically significant differences of CRP values between periodontal patients and healthy controls were found. \nConclusions: CRP values don’t seem to change after non-surgical treatment of periodontitis, even in presence of a reduction of clinical indices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it