Effect of anxiety and psychologic stress on periodontal health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this meta-analysis (PROSPERO No: CRD42019124695) was to assess the association between psychologic stress, anxiety, and periodontitis. DATA SOURCES: The electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, by three independent reviewers till December 2019. The search was limited to human studies published only in English language. The fixed-effect model and random-effects model were used to obtain the overall mean difference, odds ratio (OR), and its 95% CI for all studies. The heterogeneity was calculated by I2 statistics. The Newcastle--Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Out of 775 potentially relevant articles, 25 studies were selected for systematic review and only 14 studies could be used for meta-analysis in three subsets. The pooled OR for stress and periodontitis was 1.78, which was statistically highly significant (I2 = 98.6%, P = .00). Mean salivary cortisol levels as a measure of stress in patients with periodontitis was 4.81 nmol/L (I2 = 98.0%, P = .08). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory value was seen as -1.28 (I2 = 0.0%, P = .06) for state anxiety and -0.11 (I2 = 0.0%, P = .85) for trait anxiety in patients with periodontitis. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a role of psychologic stress and anxiety in the progression of periodontitis.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".