Periodontal disease and emotional disorders: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship of periodontal disease with depression and anxiety via a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: We systematically searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and SinoMed databases (until August 4, 2019) with language restricted to English and Chinese. Case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies that calculated the risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR)/prevalence OR (POR), and hazard ratio (HR) of depression/anxiety with periodontal disease or the OR/POR/RR/HR of periodontal disease caused by depression/anxiety were included. Observational studies that reported the depression/anxiety scale score of patients with periodontal disease and healthy periodontal subjects aged ≥14 years were also included. We used the standard format to extract the following information from each included study: author/s, survey year, study design, age of participants, periodontal disease definition, depression/anxiety measurement, and summary of results. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to ascertain the quality of the included citations. RESULTS: After screening, 40 studies were included. A meta-analysis of the case-control studies showed that periodontal disease was positively associated with depression (OR = 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-2.83). A meta-analysis of 12 studies showed that periodontal disease was significantly correlated with anxiety (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.11-1.66). A meta-analysis of 18 studies showed that subjects with periodontal disease had higher depression scale score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.68-1.41) and anxiety scale score (SMD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.44-0.96). CONCLUSION: Periodontal disease is associated with emotional disorders. However, the high degree of heterogeneity among studies should be considered. More high-quality prospective studies are required to confirm the relationship.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".