Burning Mouth Syndrome and Hypertension: Prevalence, Gender Differences and Correlation with Pain and Psycho-social Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To assess the prevalence of Hypertension (HTN) in Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) patients and to investigate its relationship with sociodemographic factors, pain and the psychological profile. Methods: A case-control study was conducted by enrolling 242 BMS patients and 242 controls matched for age and gender. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were recorded, and all the participants completed the numeric rating scale (NRS), the short-form of the McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the Hamilton rating scale for anxiety and depression (HAM-A, HAM-D), the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) and the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS). Results: The BMS patients presented a statistically significant higher prevalence of HTN compared to the controls (55% versus 33.5%; p-value: <.001**) and higher median scores of the NRS, SF-MPQ, HAM-A, HAM-D, PSQI and ESS (p < .001**). Multivariate regression analysis in the BMS patients indicated positive correlations between HTN and age, systemic diseases, drug consumption and anxiety (p-value: <.001**) and these predictors were responsible for 11.3% of the HTN variance in the BMS patients, when considered together. Conclusions: The prevalence of HTN was significantly higher in the BMS patients, since ageing, the presence of comorbidities, drug consumption and anxiety were potential predictors. Further studies are needed to better investigate the relationship between BMS and HTN.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".