Características microbiológicas de la periimplantitis y la periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Se presenta una revisión sistemática de la bibliografía para esclarecer diferencias entre el conjunto de características microbiológicas de la periimplantitis y el de la periodontitis. De acuerdo a la declaración PRISMA, se realizaron búsquedas en bases de datos (PubMed, EBSCOhost, LILACS, Web Of Science y Clinical Key) y se seleccionaron artículos originales y revisiones sistemáticas donde se compararan o analizaran datos microbiológicos obtenidos de muestras de biopelículas subgingivales de pacientes con periodontitis y periimplantitis. El peso de la evidencia se evaluó por medio de las escalas de Newcastle-Ottawa y PRISMA. De los 335 artículos identificados, se incluyeron 12, de los cuales 9 fueron estudios observacionales y 3 revisiones sistemáticas. Se obtuvo que las características microbiológicas asociadas a la periimplantitis son similares a las de la periodontitis debido a que comparten un porcentaje de su microbiota, como es el caso de los agentes periodontopatógenos; sin embargo, se encontraron bacterias relacionadas únicamente al surco periimplantar. Finalmente, se destacó que en la periimplantitis figuran bacterias que en su mayoría son gramnegativas anaerobias, periodontopatógenas, oportunistas y no cultivables; es decir, que sus características microbiológicas resultan complejas y difieren de las específicas de la periodontitis."
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 | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".