Association between oral health status and frailty in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim This study aims to explore the association between oral health status and frailty in older adults using comprehensive and objective oral health measurement indicators. Method This study conducted a collection and retrieval of relevant literature in the following English databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (up to July 1, 2024). After screening the literature according to the specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, the quality of the literature was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The degree of heterogeneity was then represented by the I2 statistic, and based on this result, a random-effects or fixed-effects model was determined for analysis. Odds ratios (OR)/standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were employed to identify the association between various oral health indicators and frailty. Sensitivity analysis was performed for all outcomes. Results A total of 28 articles were included. Number of teeth (SMD: −0.591), functional dentition (≥21 teeth) (OR: 0.236), no false teeth (OR: 0.733), ≤20 teeth/with denture (OR: 2.320), tooth brushing daily (OR: 0.562), tongue pressure/decreased tongue pressure (SMD: −0.582/OR: 1.618), occlusal force/occlusal force reduced (SMD: −0.526/OR: 1.846), oral diadochokinesis hypofunction (OR: 1.876), poor mixing ability (OR: 2.303) and oral health assessment tool scores ≥4 (OR: 2.501) were correlated with frailty in older adults. Conclusion Various types of oral health indicators are associated with frailty in older adults. Investigating the relationship between oral health and frailty in older adults is of significant importance for preventing frailty, ensuring the quality of life for older adults, and promoting healthy longevity. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42024587687.
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".