What is the impact of previous cholelithiasis on sialolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A sialolith is a salivary stone usually presenting with swelling and pain in the affected salivary gland, most commonly the submandibular gland. There have been speculations about the association between this condition and other systemic diseases, especially those forming stones, such as nephrolithiasis and cholelithiasis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the studies assessing the relationship between cholelithiasis and sialolithiasis. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases were searched according to the keywords related to both disorders without any publication date or language restriction. Case-control and cohort studies evaluating the relationship between salivary and biliary stones were considered eligible. Quality assessment was performed following Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for quality assessment of case-control studies. All meta and statistical analyses were performed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: Two studies fully complied with the defined eligibility criteria and were included, both of which were case-control studies using national-scale databases. In both surveys, the prevalence of previous gallstones in patients with sialolithiasis was compared to that of a control group. Though one of the studies found that there is no relationship between sialolithiasis and cholelithiasis, the meta-analysis revealed that previous cholelithiasis is significantly more prevalent among patients with sialolithiasis (P = 0.000), with an odds ratio of 2.04. Conclusion: It seems that cholelithiasis is significantly associated with an increase in salivary stone formation. Therefore, a thorough salivary examination in all patients declaring current or past cholelithiasis is recommended. However, more studies, especially prospective cohorts, are needed to make firmer conclusions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".