Periodontal disease and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the association between periodontal disease (PD) and prostate cancer (PC) using systematic review and meta-analysis.Any observational studies investigating the association between PD and PC published in PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception to 2024 were reviewed.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality.Stata version 17.0 software was used for all statistical analyses.The study's findings were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) through fixed-or random-effects model meta-analysis.Nine studies involving 621,982 male participants aged ≥ 20 years were finally included in this meta-analysis.The fixed-effects model meta-analysis revealed a significant association between PD and PC (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.12-1.28;p = 0.0000).The present meta-analysis was robust based on the results of sensitivity analysis.This meta-analysis demonstrates a significant association between PD and PC, potentially driven by chronic inflammation and migration of periodontal pathogenic bacterial.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".