Is periodontitis a risk factor for ischemic stroke?: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence suggests an association between periodontitis and ischemic stroke due to the elevated production of inflammatory markers and damage by infectious agents, which would promote a recurrent prothrombotic state. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to determine whether periodontitis is a risk factor for ischemic stroke. Material and Methods: A systematic search was conducted in five databases, including cohort and case-control studies published up to April 2024, in which periodontitis was evaluated as a risk factor for ischemic stroke through relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias, and the GRADE system was used to determine the certainty of the evidence. Results: Of the 1121 studies found, 16 were included in the qualitative analysis, and 10 were meta-analyzed. The global synthesis showed that periodontitis was a risk factor for ischemic stroke (OR=2.59, I2=96%), with the same result being found for the case-control subgroup (OR=3.44, I²=73%) and the cohort subgroup (OR=2.05, I²=99%). Individuals with periodontitis were also found to be more likely to develop lacunar infarcts (OR=5.00, I2=0%). Conclusions: Periodontitis, periodontal diseases, ischemic stroke, lacunar infarction, embolic stroke, thrombotic stroke.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".