Prevalence of Self-Reported Halitosis in Individuals With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a well-known metabolic disorder that leads to multiple oral complications, including increased caries incidence, periodontal breakdown, periapical abscesses, and delayed wound healing. Oral malodor is influenced by local (intraoral) and systemic (extraoral) factors. DM is believed to have a direct influence on both intra and extra oral halitosis. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of self-reported halitosis among diabetic individuals and compare it between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey consisting of 34 questions was used. The survey collected demographic, medical and lifestyle data, as well as halitosis-related parameters. The survey was validated by two experts and piloted with 30 participants to ensure clarity and reliability. The targeted sample consisted of individuals with type 1 DM (group I), type 2 DM (group II), and a control group of healthy subjects (group III). Results: A total of 632 surveys were analyzed, with 12 subjects excluded due to reported loss of smelling ability. Halitosis was self-reported by 50.7%, 48.0% and 28.0% of groups I, II and III, respectively. Subjects with DM reported a higher intensity of halitosis (P value = 0.005), with more than 65% of respondents reported smelling ability score more than 8 out of 10, and the subjects with diabetes reported significantly less smelling ability score. Only 1.7% of subjects with DM were informed about their halitosis by a healthcare provider. Conclusions: DM demonstrates a significant correlation with halitosis prevalence and intensity, with similar outcomes observed in individuals with type 1 and type 2 DM. The reported reduced smelling ability in patients with DM may lead to an underestimation of self-reported halitosis. Moreover, insufficient communication from healthcare providers further exacerbates this issue.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".