Effectiveness of oral hygiene educational interventional programs on participants with Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate oral health-related knowledge, and to compare the effectiveness of three different oral health education interventions (OHEI) on plaque removal in a cohort with Parkinson disease. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The three-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial included 63 Parkinson disease stage 1 and 2 patients aged ≥ 40 years and scores ≥ 26 in both Montreal Cognitive Assessment test and Mini-Mental State Exam. These patients were allocated to three OHEI groups: lectures, presentation, and demonstration. The validated questionnaire assessed knowledge level at baseline (0), 1, 2, and 3 months. Oral hygiene at 0 and 3 months was assessed by the Plaque Index and the Patient Hygiene Performance Index (PHPI). Unstimulated whole saliva was collected to assess the salivary flow rate. RESULTS: Pairwise comparison using ANOVA showed a significant decrease in mean percentage knowledge 0, 1, 2, and 3 months in all three groups (P < .001). After Tukey post-hoc analysis the presentation group had significantly higher knowledge (P = .030). ANOVA showed that the percentage of knowledge decreased as time passed (P = .001). Comparison of means of Plaque Index and PHPI scores by MANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc analysis showed significant decrease in Plaque Index scores from 0 to 3 months (P = .001). No significant change in the salivary flow rate was noted. CONCLUSION: Pictorial representation of OHEI is a better mode of intervention compared to lectures and demonstrations in Parkinson disease stage 1 and 2 patients. Despite the decline in knowledge with time, Plaque Index scores reduced significantly, implying that this form OHEI offers positive benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".