Obesity and periodontitis: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A previous 2014 meta-analysis reported a positive association between obesity and periodontitis. It was considered necessary to update the recently published papers and to analyse subgroups on important clinical variables that could affect the association between obesity and periodontitis. Therefore, we updated the latest studies and attempted to derive more refined results. Methods: All observational studies were eligible for inclusion. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to qualitatively evaluate the risk of bias. Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients aged 18-34, 35-54, and 55+ years and the countries (European countries, USA, Brazil, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries). Results: Thirty-seven full-text articles were included. Obesity conferred increased odds of periodontal disease with an odds ratio (1.35, 95% CI: 1.05-1.75). In the subgroup analysis by age, the odds ratio was the highest in the 18-34 years group (2.21, 95% CI: 1.26-3.89). In the subgroup analysis by country, European countries had the highest odds ratio (2.46, 95% CI: 1.11-5.46). Conclusion: Despite the differences in degree, a positive association between obesity and periodontitis was found regardless of country or age. Therefore, medical professionals should try to prevent periodontitis by controlling patient weights, and more studies should be conducted to determine the association between obesity and oral health. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022301343.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".