Association between epilepsy and oral maxillofacial trauma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic literature search was conducted (through April 2017), using Web of Science, PubMed and Virtual Health Library, manual reference list, and grey literature searches. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The meta-analysis was performed using R software. A total of 30 studies was included in this review. From a total of 25 studies included in the meta-analysis, the prevalence of oral and maxillofacial injuries among epileptic subjects was 19%. Among the epileptic patients who suffered some type of injury due to epileptic seizures, 52% had facial soft tissue injuries (95%CI: 28-75%), 18% suffered dental trauma (95%CI: 11-29%), and 12% (95%CI: 4-28%) suffered maxillofacial fractures. Epileptic patients were more likely to have oral and maxillofacial injuries than healthy individuals (OR: 5.22, 95%CI: 2.84-9.36) and subjects with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (OR: 2.77, 95%CI: 1.28-5.99), but not than patients with special needs (OR: 2.45,95%CI: 0.95-6.31).
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".