Association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies have suggested contradictory results on the relationship between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and periodontal disease (PD). The aim of this study was to determine whether PD increased the risk of COPD and COPD-related clinical events. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and Ovid CENTRAL were searched from inception to 22 February 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We included trials and observational studies evaluating association of PD with the risk of COPD or COPD-related events (exacerbation and mortality), with statistical adjustment for smoking. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators independently extracted data from selected studies using a standardised Excel file. Quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. OR with 95% CI was pooled in a random-effect model with inverse variance method. RESULTS: 22 observational studies with 51 704 participants were included. Pooled analysis of 18 studies suggested that PD was weakly associated with the risk of COPD (OR: 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32). However, in stratified and subgroup analyses, with strict adjustment for smoking, PD no longer related to the risk of COPD (adjusting for smoking intensity: OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.51; smokers only: OR: 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31; never smokers only: OR: 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.21). Moreover, PD did not increase the risk of COPD-related exacerbation or mortality (OR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.97) in the pooled result of four studies. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates PD confers no risk for COPD and COPD-related events when strictly adjusted by smoking. Large-scale prospective cohort studies with control of potential confounding factors are warranted to validate the present findings.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".