Influence of psychological stress on the response to periodontal treatment: Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research rationale: The interaction between stress and periodontal treatment is a topic of growing interest, standing out as a field of research that sheds light on the complexity of oral health in individuals subjected to high levels of emotional stress. Objective: To examine scientific evidence related to the influence of psychological stress on the response to periodontal treatment. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be followed, and will be based on a PICO (Participants, Exposure, Comparators, Outcomes) question formulation. Studies involving human adults diagnosed with periodontal disease and undergoing periodontal therapy (Participants) will be included. Patients exposed (I) and not exposed to psychological stress (C) will be compared to assess the clinical outcome of periodontal treatment (Outcome). The literature search will cover studies published up to November 2023 and will include searching PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, SCOPUS, ProQuest and ScienceDirect databases. Duplicate results will be eliminated after the initial searches. Study selection will be conducted in two phases. In the first phase, study titles and abstracts will be evaluated for relevance. In the second phase, the articles selected in the previous phase will be evaluated in their entirety. After selection, data extraction and evaluation of the quality of included studies will proceed using the Ottawa-Newcastle scale.
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 | 0.073 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.012 |
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".