Association between periodontal disease and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Periodontal disease and osteoporosis are common chronic diseases, especially for the postmenopausal women. Several original studies explore the association, but there still controversial. Therefore, we will conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between periodontal disease and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Protocols. We will systematically search Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to August 2021 to collect all relevant publications, with no restrictions on publication date or languages. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently by two trained reviewers independently. The Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will be used for the risk of bias assessment. OR, HR and risk ratio with 95% CI were considered as the effect size for dichotomous outcomes, weighted mean difference with 95% CI were calculated as the effect size for continuous outcomes. Random-effects models will be used. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed via the forest plot and I². Publication bias will detected by funnel plots, Begg's test and Egger's test. The subgroup analyses and sensitivity ananlyses will also be used to explore and interpret the heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate our findings by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021225746.
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 | 0.083 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.006 |
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".