Evaluation of antioxidant-oxidant status of saliva in recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) as a common oral lesion may be created due to oxidative stress. In this study, we intend to examine the salivary antioxidant-oxidant status in patients with RAS. METHODS: In this review study, all English and Persian articles were searched by relevant keywords from the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, Scopus and SID databases from 1995 to 30 March 2020. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection using the specified eligibility criteria. Finally, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) method was used for the quality evaluation of studies. RESULTS: A systematic search on the references led to the identification of 87 articles, of which 68 were excluded and finally, 19 articles were included in the study. The majority of the studies (86%) showed no significant decrease in the total antioxidant capacity (TAC). In 71% of the studies, the malondialdehyde (MDA) levels exhibited an increasing trend and in all studies, Glutathione peroxidase (GPx) had a decreasing trend; the results in relation to uric acid were contradictory. CONCLUSION: Beyond the need for more extensive research in this area, it can be concluded that since RAS has multifactorial etiology, changes in the body’s antioxidant-oxidant status are considered as an effective factor along with other factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".