Hypovitaminosis D, objective oral dryness, and fungal hyphae as three precipitating factors for a subset of secondary burning mouth syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Elucidating the concurrence and interdependence of three precipitating factors as contributors of a subset of secondary burning mouth syndrome (BMS), which is defined having detectable precipitating factors. Design 47 secondary BMS and 15 non-BMS cases were sourced from medical records of an Oral Pathology Specialty Clinic in Canada (2017–2021). Each case had Cytology, Hematology, and Sialometry tests to detail the state of three precipitating factors (the presence of fungal hyphae, hypovitaminosis D, and objective oral dryness). Three factors were compared between secondary BMS and non-BMS groups independently, in pairs, and as a triple-factor by Fisher's exact tests, Contingency Coefficients, and Logistic Regressions. Results Rates of objective oral dryness (89.36%) and hypovitaminosis D (74.47%) in the secondary BMS group significantly differ from the non-BMS group ( p = 0.0013, p = 0.0016). No difference was found in the incidence of fungal hyphae between BMS (91.49%) and non-BMS groups (p = 0.0881). Rates of three precipitating factors in pairs and as a triple-factor within the secondary BMS group significantly differ from the non-BMS group ( p -values from 0.0011 to <0.0001). Their significant correlations with secondary BMS are found independently (excluding fungal hyphae), in pairs, and as a triple-factor (C-values from 0.371 to 0.461, p -values from 0.002 to <0.001). The highest C-value belongs to the triple-factor. Objective oral dryness ( p = 0.009) and hypovitaminosis D ( p = 0.008) are confirmed as significant predictors for secondary BMS. Conclusions The presence of fungal hyphae contribute to a subset of secondary BMS only when coinciding with objective oral dryness, hypovitaminosis D, or both. This interdependent relationship leads to a hypothesis that hypovitaminosis D, which is commonly called "a low value of vitamin D", and objective oral dryness make an oral environment conducive to insidious Candida invasion, which is an intermediate status of the host-fungal interaction staying between healthy oral mucosa (non-infection) and oral candidiasis (infection).
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".