Effects of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias on dental care usage and economic burden in older adults: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (RD) might have different effects on dental care usage and economic burden. To determine the effects of AD and RD on specific types of dental care usage (preventive and treatment visits) and dental care costs from different payers (total and out-of-pocket costs). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey in 2016. This study identified 4268 community dwelling older adults with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) from a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Dental care usage and costs are based on self-reported data. Preventive dental events included preventive and diagnosis events. Treatment dental events included restorative, oral surgery and other events. RESULTS: This study identified 4268 (weighted N=30 423 885) older adults, including 94.48% without ADRD, 1.90% with AD and 3.63% with RD. Compared with older adults without ADRD, those with AD had similar dental care usage, but those with RD were 38% less likely to have treatment visit (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.94) and had a 40% reduced number of total treatment visits (incidence rate ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.98). RD was not associated with dental care costs, but AD was associated with higher total costs (β: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.14 to 2.01) and higher out-of-pocket costs (β: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.17 to 2.32). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ADRD were more likely to have adverse dental care outcomes. Specifically, RD was associated with lower treatment dental care usage and AD was associated with higher total and out-of-pocket dental care costs. Effective patient-centred strategies should be used to improve dental care outcomes in patients with distinct subtypes of ADRD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".