The oral health status of patients with peripheral vascular disorders: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Periodontal disease and tooth loss were found to be associated with several peripheral vascular disorders. Nonetheless, an evaluation of the literature on the broader domains of oral health in individuals with peripheral vascular disorders is lacking. This systematic review aims to collate the current evidence on the oral health status of individuals with peripheral vascular disorders. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies assessing oral health parameters in individuals with peripheral vascular disorders. Outcome measures considered were periodontal health, dentition status, caries indices, oral prostheses, oral pathologies and oral hygiene behaviours. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to appraise the quality of the studies. RESULTS: From 3025 records identified, 24 studies involving 1232 participants with peripheral vascular disorders were included in this review. In nine studies, periodontitis was significantly more prevalent in peripheral vascular disorders compared to non-peripheral vascular disorders participants. A further six studies reported individuals with peripheral vascular disorders also had significantly fewer teeth and increased rates of edentulism. Only one study reported a higher incidence of dental caries in peripheral vascular disorders participants. Other aspects of oral health such as oral prosthesis, oral pathology and oral hygiene behaviours were seldom assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The scarcity of studies reporting on broader domains limited our ability to arrive at a conclusion regarding the oral health status of individuals with peripheral vascular disorders. Future studies ought to assess these domains in individuals with peripheral vascular disorders and controls to gain a more complete understanding of oral health and its potential association with peripheral vascular disorders.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".