Periodontal status in cannabis smokers. A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To assess the periodontal status in cannabis smokers in comparison with non-cannabis smokers. Materials and methods: Electronic databases were searched as well as hand searches performed. Eligible studies followed the Population Exposure Comparison Outcome Study (PECOS) structure: P: dentate humans, E: cannabis smoking, C: non-cannabis smoking, O: Primary outcomes: periodontitis case definition, clinical attachment loss, probing depth; Secondary outcomes: bleeding on probing/ gingival inflammation, plaque index and calculus; S: observational studies. Qualitative analyses of the studies were done. The quality of cohort studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and cross-sectional studies were assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: 2661 records were screened, of which 14 articles were included. Data from a cohort study showed that highly exposed participants were at higher risk of clinical attachment loss progression. Six cross-sectional studies reported worse gingival or periodontal conditions in cannabis smokers. Nevertheless, one did not find such association, neither did three case series. Three studies were of high, two of moderate and six were of low quality. Conclusions: Based on the available data, frequent cannabis smoking could be detrimental for periodontal tissues and this could be dose-dependent. Studies including long-term cannabis smokers, and stratified for periodontal disease etiologic factors and risk factors/indicators are needed.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".