Association Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Periodontal Inflammatory Parameters: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the current evidence of the potential correlation between periodontitis inflammatory parameters and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Material and Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic literature searches in PubMed, Medline, EBSCO, Scopus (ELSEVIER), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and Grey Library were conducted to analyze relevant references. Eligibility was based on inclusion criteria which included cross-sectional studies published after 2012.The rationale for selecting this temporal framework was grounded in the availability of studies from this period that aligned with the objectives and parameters of the review Authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Quality assessment was conducted under the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The outcome variables were objectives, demographics, risks factors, dental statement, Pathogens, and conclusions. Results: The technique used was the comparison, pooling and study of different case studies (considered, or not, significant and/or representative). Out of 564 potentially eligible articles, 5 cross-sectional articles were included based on specific inclusion criteria such as being published after 2012, alignment with the study objectives, and focusing on Alzheimer's disease and periodontal inflammatory parameters. All five studies highlight a higher prevalence of AD in women that increases in age. While four studies supported connection between AD and periodontal inflammatory parameters, one study found no plausible association. The quality assessment displayed a mean score of 10.8 (Range: 0 to 13), being the domain "selection" the highest ranked and the "comparability" the lowest. Conclusions: Alzheimer's disease, Cytokines, Gingipains, Periodontitis, Porphyromonas gingivalis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".