Periodontal disease and cirrhosis: current concepts and future prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodontal diseases are prevalent among the general population and are associated with several systemic conditions, such as chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis have also been linked with periodontal disease, an association with complex underlying mechanisms, and with potential prognostic implications. Multiple factors can explain this relevant association, including nutritional factors, alcohol consumption, disruption of the oral-gut-liver axis and associated dysbiosis. Additionally, patients with liver disease have been observed to exhibit poorer oral hygiene practices compared with the general population, potentially predisposing them to the development of periodontal disease. Therefore, it is recommended that all patients with liver disease undergo screening and subsequent treatment for periodontal disease. Treatment of periodontal disease in patients with cirrhosis may help reduce liver-derived inflammatory damage, with recent research indicating a potential benefit in terms of reduced mortality. However, further studies on periodontal disease treatment in patients with liver disease are still warranted to determine optimal management strategies. This narrative review describes current concepts on the association between periodontal disease and chronic liver disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".