Oral health inequalities among geriatric population: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As per the World Health Organization, governments should aim to accomplish two significant global milestones by 2030: reducing health disparities and granting universal accessibility to healthcare. The aim of this article was to systematically review the inequalities and understand the multifactorial causation of oral health inequalities among the older adults. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) standards were used to carry out the review and is documented in PROSPERO CRD42026695761. Two authors did the search and screening in accordance with the protocol. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and EBSCOhost articles of the last 10 years were searched for research presenting data on oral health status and oral health related quality of life in the elderly population. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for retrospective and prospective research. Results: Only 24 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were incorporated into the qualitative synthesis. Multiple aspects of oral health and the related variables influencing disparities in oral health in the elderly population living in institutions have a positive link. Conclusion: The findings support the notion that this demographic consists of weak, dependent individuals who have poor oral health. The vulnerable elderly institutionalized population was recognized and validated, thus helps in providing measures that will eventually focus the risk factors to improve their OHRQoL.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".