Relationship between periodontal disease and obstructive sleep apnea in adults: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether there are scientific evidence regarding the association between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults. An electronic search was performed on MEDLINE/PubMed for prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies conducted in human adults affected by both OSA and periodontitis. Two reviewers extracted the data using a custom Excel spreadsheet. A methodological assessment of the quality of the studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fourteen studies were included. All studies evaluated the association between periodontitis and OSA. None of the studies evaluated the cause-effect relationship. Eleven studies found a significant positive relationship between periodontitis and OSA, whereas three found no statistically significant association. Several study limitations were observed, such as lack of standardization of study groups, diagnosis of periodontitis and OSA, and differences in study design. Evidence of a plausible association between periodontitis and OSA was found. The possible relationship could be explained by systemic inflammation, oral breathing, and the comorbid relationship attributable to common risk factors. Observational and randomized controlled studies are needed to clarify the mechanism of interaction between the two conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".