An overview of the mouth in gastroenterology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This is a review comprehensively covers the mouth and the rest of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and the nexus between the worlds of the dentist and of the gastroenterologist so as to encourage collaboration between them, so that their patients may benefit.Methods A structured review of oral disease with a focus on the systemic implications for the gastroenterologist.Findings Although the mouth is the first part of the GIT, it is a peculiarly complex and unique organ. Following a preamble, the biofilms and biomarkers, avoidance of risk of displacement of teeth and/or restorations into the trachea or esophagus, anatomy, pathology, dental examination and radiology, medical imaging, oral presentation of GIT disease, prevention of dental disease and the oral manifestation of malignancies arising in the GIT. Oral cancers may presage primaries arising elsewhere in the GIT. In Canada, three-quarters of its citizens were examined by dentists at least once in the year before the COVID lockdown. Therefore, dentists have an important health-care role as they routinely surveil a substantial proportion of the population regularly. In addition of the examination of the oral cavity, the dentist is also expected to inspect the oro-pharynx and performed a full extra-oral examination of the head and neck. Detection of lymphadenopathy, particularly if indurated must prompt consideration of a primary tumor in the head and neck and its appropriate referral.Summary Although primary clinical examination of the nasopharynx by the dentist has never been considered appropriate, the recent advent of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) frequently includes it. This compels the dentist to refer such datasets to radiologists in the first instance. Furthermore, the dentist should also consider gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when evaluating each case of dental erosion. Obesity and smoking should heighten such a suspicion. Oral manifestations of GIT disease have been separately tabulated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".