Possible Association of Periodontal Diseases With Helicobacter pylori Gastric Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some research has suggested that dental plaque and saliva could be reservoirs of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and be capable of infecting or re-infecting the gastric mucosa after eradication, with certain studies showing a significant association between PD and gastric infection by this bacterium. An electronic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases with the terms “Helicobacter pylori AND periodontal diseases”; “Helicobacter pylori AND gingivitis”; “Helicobacter pylori AND chronic periodontitis”; “Helicobacter pylori AND periodontitis”; “Helicobacter pylori AND dental plaque”, to identify articles up to September 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 2020 (Cochane Collaboration) software. A total of 1,315 studies were identified and 12 were included, analyzing 226,086 patients with mean age between 10.5 and 63.4 years. The prevalence of H. pylori in the oral cavity ranged from 5.4 to 83.3%. A random-effects model was used to analyze the presence of H. pylori and subgroups were made according to the method of evaluation (PCR or RUT). Statistical significance was found in the overall analysis (p = 0.01). There is no clear evidence that H. pylori present in oral bacterial plaque causes gastric infection and vice versa. Systematic Review Registration www.INPLASY.COM , identifier: INPLASY2021100097.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".