MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391917517 · doi:10.7759/cureus.54395

A Determination of Salivary and Serum Glucose Levels in Patients With Type II Diabetes Mellitus

2024· article· en· W4391917517 on OpenAlexaff
Bushra Anjum, Neeharika Soorneedi, Jami Swathi, Mohammed Imran, Kavitha Gaddikeri, Anoop Nallapu

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsBrantford Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalivaMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineAmylaseType 2 Diabetes MellitusAlpha-amylaseGastroenterologyEndocrinologyEnzymeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this work was to determine and compare serum and salivary glucose levels in patients with type II diabetes mellitus (DM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study had an overall sample size of 100, which consisted of male and female volunteers aged 30-67 years. Both in-depth interviews and physical tests were conducted. Blood and saliva were collected from the participants while fasting, which were analyzed to determine the levels of salivary alpha-amylase (α-amylase). Both the subjects and the controls were instructed to test their blood glucose levels while fasting and it was suggested that HbA1c values will be used for diagnosing diabetes following the guidelines of the American Diabetes Association, Centers for Disease Control, and World Health Organization. RESULTS: The average age of the control group (Category A) was noted as 47.52±6.28 years, and that of the study group (Category B) was 49.17±7.25 years. In Category A, female (n=23) were 46%, and 54% were male (n=27); and 40% of the people in Category B were female (n=20), and 60% were male (n=30). The majority of patients (54%) in Category B displayed an average level of DM control (n=27), followed by poor control (24%. n=12), well-controlled (20%, n=10), and uncontrolled DM (2%, n=1). Category A had an average salivary α-amylase concentration of 3.1±0.88 U/L, whereas that of Category B was 12.06±2.36 U/L. Thus, the mean salivary α-amylase level of Category B was found to be much higher than that of Category A, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The determination of α-amylase levels in the saliva of individuals suspected of having type II DM has been suggested as a potential diagnostic method. Screenings conducted at healthcare institutions and community health fairs, as well as epidemiological studies, might benefit from this method. We believe that normal clinical practice should include the use of saliva in a broad variety of diagnostic tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicOral microbiology and periodontitis research→French-language works237,207→