The Effect of Periodontitis on Dementia and Cognitive Impairment: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between periodontal disease and dementia/cognitive impairment continues to receive increasing attention. However, whether periodontal disease is a risk factor for dementia/cognitive impairment is still uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively analyze the effect of periodontitis on dementia and cognitive impairment, and to assess the periodontal status of dementia patients at the same time. A literature search was undertaken on 19 October 2020 using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase with different search terms. Two evaluators screened studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a third evaluator was involved if there were disagreements; this process was the same as that used for data extraction. Included studies were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and results were analyzed using software Review Manager 5.2. Twenty observational studies were included. In the comparison between periodontitis and cognitive impairment, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.77 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.31-2.38), which indicated that there was a strong relationship between periodontitis and cognitive impairment. There was no statistical significance in the effect of periodontitis on dementia (OR = 1.59; 95%CI, 0.92-2.76). The subgroup analysis revealed that moderate or severe periodontitis was significantly associated with dementia (OR = 2.13; 95%CI, 1.25-3.64). The mean difference (MD) of the community periodontal index (CPI) and clinical attachment level (CAL) was 0.25 (95%CI, 0.09-0.40) and 1.22 (95%CI, 0.61-1.83), respectively. In this meta-analysis, there was an association between periodontitis and cognitive impairment, and moderate or severe periodontitis was a risk factor for dementia. Additionally, the deterioration of periodontal status was observed among dementia patients.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".