Assessment of C-Reactive Protein Levels in Periodontal Patients Using a Standard Laboratory Procedure
Bibliographic record
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.Methods: 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 Results: 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 Conclusions: 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".