Effect of Periodontal Disease on Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review was to evaluate the relationship between periodontal disease (PD) and the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to determine whether patients with PD would be at greater risk of developing AD compared to periodontally healthy subjects. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search for cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control studies was conducted on five databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Scopus). No restrictions were applied to the language and year of publication. Exposure was PD, and the outcome of interest was the onset and/or progression of AD. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) designed for non-randomized studies. Six studies fulfilling the selection criteria were included in this systematic review. Four of the studies were of cohort design and two were of case-control design. All except one showed a significant association between PD and the risk of AD onset and progression. According to the NOS bias risk assessment, three studies were found to be of good quality, and three other cohort studies were of low quality. Data from this systematic review indicate that patients with PD present a significantly higher risk of AD compared to individuals with healthy periodontium. However, results should be interpreted with caution given the methodological limitations found. For future research, powerful and comparable epidemiological studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between PD and AD.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.009 |
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 it