Reflex Gastroesophageal Disorders and Functional Dyspepsia: Potential Confounding Variables for the Progression of Chronic Periodontitis: A Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To probe into the possible connection between gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERDs) and functionally occurring dyspepsia as a factor raising the risk of chronic periodontitis. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on 40 patients with chronic periodontitis with age group between 40–60 years. The test group included 20 people diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to the Montreal Definition and Classification agreement, and chronic periodontitis. Symptomatic diagnoses were done to confirm functional dyspepsia. The control group comprised 20 systematically healthy people suffering from chronic periodontitis. Indices measured included flow-rate of saliva, repetitive saliva swallowing test for swallowing function, papillary marginal attachment index of gingiva, oral hygiene index-simplified and decayed, missing, filled teeth index. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 22 (IBM Inc. Chicago, USA). Descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables and frequency and percentage for categorical variables were determined. T test was performed for intergroup comparison and Pearson correlation test was done for evaluating correlation between various parameters. P ≤ 0.05 considered as significant. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between the test and control groups with regard to all the clinical parameters of interest. Pearson's correlation test revealed a strong negative correlation between salivary flow rate and OHI-S and DMFT scores. The RSST swallow function values demonstrated a moderate negative correlation with OHI-S scores, while OHI-I scores and DMFT scores were observed to be strongly correlated in a positive direction. A statistically significant difference was present in the probing depth and CAL levels between both the groups with higher levels in test group. Conclusion: GERD was linked to incremental incidences of chronic periodontitis and was established as an independent risk-raising factor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".