Burning Mouth Syndrome and Hypertension: Prevalence, Gender Differences and Association with Pain and Psycho-Social Characteristics—A Case Control Study
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 participants completed 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 with a statistically significant higher prevalence of HTN compared to that in the controls (55% versus 33.5%; p-value: <0.001) and higher median scores of the NRS, SF-MPQ, HAM-A, HAM-D, PSQI and ESS (p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis in the BMS patients indicated positive correlations between HTN and age, systemic diseases, drug consumption and anxiety (p-value: <0.001) 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".