Effect of different forms of tobacco on the oral microbiome in healthy adults: 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
Objective The study aimed to evaluate the impact of tobacco use on the composition and functions of the oral microbiome in healthy adult humans. Methods We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cinhal databases for literature published until 15 December 2023, to identify studies that have evaluated the oral microbiome with culture-independent next-generation techniques comparing the oral microbiome of tobacco users and non-users. The search followed the PECO format. The outcomes included changes in microbial diversity and abundance of microbial taxa. The quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) (PROSPERO ID CRD42022340151). Results Out of 2,435 articles screened, 36 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and were selected for full-text review. Despite differences in design, quality, and population characteristics, most studies reported an increase in bacterial diversity and richness in tobacco users. The most notable bacterial taxa enriched in users were Fusobacteria and Actinobacteria at the phylum level and Streptococcus , Prevotella , and Veillonella at the genus level. At the functional level, more similarities could be noted; amino acid metabolism and xenobiotic biodegradation pathways were increased in tobacco users compared to non-users. Most of the studies were of good quality on the NOS scale. Conclusion Tobacco smoking influences oral microbial community harmony, and it shows a definitive shift towards a proinflammatory milieu. Heterogeneities were detected due to sampling and other methodological differences, emphasizing the need for greater quality research using standardized methods and reporting. Systematic Review Registration CRD42022340151.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it