Association between tooth loss‐related speech and psychosocial impairment with cognitive function: A pilot study in Hong Kong's older population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tooth loss has been associated with cognitive decline, but the underlying mechanisms involving speech and psychosocial impairment remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of tooth loss-related speech and psychosocial impairment on cognitive function in Hong Kong's older population. METHODS: Seventy-six Cantonese-speaking participants between the ages of 51-92 were classified into three groups: patients with complete dentures (CD), partially edentulous patients with less than 10 occluding tooth pairs (OU <10), and at least 10 occluding tooth pairs (OU ≥10). Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Hong Kong Version, One-minute Verbal Fluency Task and Hayling Sentence Completion Test. Objective and subjective speech assessments were carried out using artificial intelligence speech recognition algorithm and a self-designed speech questionnaire. The impact of tooth loss on psychosocial condition was evaluated by the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test and a self-designed questionnaire. Statistical analyses (one-way ANOVA, ANCOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman correlation test) were performed. RESULTS: Tooth loss was significantly associated with lower cognitive function (p = .008), speech accuracy (p = .018) and verbal fluency (p = .001). Correlations were found between cognitive function and speech accuracy (p < .0001). No significant difference in tooth loss-related psychosocial impact was found between the three groups. CONCLUSION: While warranting larger sample sizes, this pilot study highlights the need for further research on the role of speech in the association between tooth loss and cognitive function. The potential cognitive impact of tooth retention, together with its known biological and proprioceptive benefits, supports the preservation of the natural dentition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".