THE INFLUENCE OF HEMODIALYSIS ON ORAL HEALTH STATUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot study was conducted on 42 patients,which included 21 patients with CRF undergoing hemodialysis and 21 healthy individuals without CRF. The study was conducted in Canadian Hospital in Dubai, Nephrology Department. The visits were made every day for a total period of three weeks at a rate of approximately 5 hours per day. Medical history was taken to ensure that the patients were within the inclusion criteria to exclude any other systemic complications other than CRF that could influence the periodontal and oral health status of the patients. The study protocol was explained and an informed written consent was given to each individual before participating in the study. Clinical parameters related to dental and gingival status were assessed under the supervision of an experienced dentist. Randomly selected half mouths were examined excluding the third molars. Recession, clinical attachment loss (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI) and dental caries were also recorded. Plaque index was visually recorded based on Sillness and Loe index and any other mucosal changes. Periodontitis was diagnosed if there was at least one site with PD≥4mm, CAL >1mm and BOP. The severity of periodontitis was classified as either severe (≥2 interproximal sites with CAL ≥6 mm and ≥1 interproximal site with PD ≥5 mm), moderate (≥2 interproximal sites with CAL ≥4 mm or ≥2 interproximal site with PD ≥5 mm) and no or mild (neither moderatenor severeperiodontitis). The aim of this pilot study was to determine the impact of hemodialysis on the dental, periodontal condition and overall oral health status in patients with CRF. No significant difference could be found between the two groups with regard to DMFS, plaque index, periodontitis and BOP. The observed variations among the groups studied appear to suggest that there is a significant difference in the halitosis and number of teeth present in CKD.\n\n
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".