Gastric adenocarcinoma and periodontal disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oral cavity is a link between of external environment with gastrointestinal tract. Studies are controversial on the presence of Periodontal Disease (PD) and its association with Gastric Adenocarcinoma (GAC). METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify the association between PD and GAC. Six electronic databases were evaluated between 1961 and 2022. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently according to the eligibility criteria, assessing full texts of selected studies. The quality of the included research was verified using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control and cohort studies. Statistical analyses were performed based on fixed and/or random effects models to calculate the summarized Relative Risk (RR) and its 95 % Confidence Interval (95 % CI). RESULTS: There were 639 studies, of which nine articles were included (3 case-controls and 6 cohorts). Overall, the authors identified 1,253 cases of GAC 2,501 controls in case-control studies, and 1,631 patients with GAC enrolled in cohort studies. Patients presenting PD increased the risk of developing GAC by 17 % (RR=1.17; 95 % CI 1.03‒1.32), which remained regardless of the diagnostic method for PD, i.e., clinical examination (RR = 1.19; 95 % CI 1.14‒1.24) and self-report (RR = 1.34; 95 % CI 1.06‒1.69). Moreover, Asian patients (RR=1.17; 95 % CI 1.00‒1.36) with PD had a higher risk of having GAC than American and European patients (RR = 1.18; 95 % CI 0.84‒1.66). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PD the risk of GAC suggesting that its infectious-inflammatory process of PD may be related to GAC development. Further investigations on the oral-gastric microbiota and its role in the carcinogenesis of gastric cancer should be carried out, and the screening of patients with potential risk for GAC should be considered in the clinical practice of dentists.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".