Assessing the relationship between people at increased risk of developing diabetes and periodontitis: a systematic review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Impaired glucose tolerance is an intermediate condition between diabetes and normal blood glucose, in which blood glucose level has risen and is between 100–126mg/dL. Present evidence suggests that there is a relationship between poor control of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes with periodontal disease. People with impaired glucose tolerance may have a more unfavourable periodontal condition than the general population with a mechanism similar to those with diabetes. Accordingly, the present study aims to assess the relationship between impaired glucose tolerance and periodontal disease using systematic review criteria. This study is a systematic review. The databases included PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar search engine. Two individuals independently selected studies based on the inclusion criteria. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist was used for quality assessment. Search management was conducted using EndNote software. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were included in the study. Regarding the pocket depth (PD) index, five studies stated that there is a relationship between impaired glucose tolerance status and the severity of the periodontal disease, and lower periodontal health was observed in groups with higher levels of blood glucose (p<0.05). With regard to the bleeding on probing (BOP) index, it should be stated that most studies have reported that there is a relationship with impaired glucose tolerance indices (p<0.05). This systematic review study suggested that there is a relationship between periodontal indicators and impaired glucose tolerance. Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons.
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 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".