Periodontal disease and sports performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between athletic performance and periodontal disease (PD). Observational studies published up to April 2022 were searched in online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, LILACS, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar). PECO statement focused on studies with professional athletes (Participants) with PD (Exposition) compared to those with healthy periodontium (Comparison) and its effects on sports performance (outcome). Searches were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (registration protocol: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ADH6) and risk of bias evaluation according to the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. A total of 793 references were retrieved, of which eight were considered eligible. Two studies did not show an association between clinical PD parameters and performance. A meta-analysis with 396 participants suggested a relationship between PD and self-reported reduction in sports performance (odds ratio [OR] = 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–2.31; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%) with moderate quality of evidence accordingly GRADE analysis. Despite the differences in performance evaluations between studies, PD was associated with reduced self-reported sports performance. Additional studies assessing confounding factors and objective assessment of PD and performance are needed to clarify the real effect of both conditions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".