Understanding rapid oral health deterioration and its associated factors among older adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Understanding the pivotal interplay between systemic and oral health is paramount to ensuring holistic care, particularly among the aging demographic. Therefore, this review article aims to explore the emerging concept of Rapid Oral Health Deterioration (ROHD) by reviewing the current knowledge base among older adults and identifying knowledge gaps in this area of research. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework between December 2023 and March 2024 and reported while adhering to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic database search was performed across three databases i.e. PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE to collate the existing literature published in English between January 2013 and February 2024 addressing ROHD among older adults. After data charting, a critical appraisal of the selected studies was followed by qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Among the 12 papers in this scoping review, 10 were cross-sectional studies, with one each of retrospective cohort and case-control studies. The qualitative thematic analysis of the selected articles resulted in the emergence of four main themes: risk factors for ROHD, attributes related to ROHD, challenges encountered in the management of ROHD, and management approaches for ROHD among older adults. Conclusions: This scoping review provides an overview of the rapid deterioration of oral health among older adults. Age-related dental disease harms the quality of life and overall health. To avoid dental disorders and to maintain and improve oral health in older adults, an integrated and multidisciplinary approach is essential. If ROHD is not treated, it may lead to poor health, a lower quality of life, and in severe cases, systemic infections that increase hospitalizations and possibly cause death.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".