Association of periodontitis and psoriasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Psoriasis and periodontitis are chronic inflammatory diseases with shared etiopathogenic aspects and risk factors. This systematic review (SR) aims to assess the impact of periodontitis on the risk of psoriasis. Methods: Prospective and retrospective studies were included in this review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases were searched up to Feb 2021. Odds ratio (OR) and standard error (SE) values of the studied groups were converted to LogOR, and the results of individual studies were grouped using a fixed-effects model. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS) scale was used to assess the risk of bias of retrospective and prospective studies. Results: From a total of 169 articles initially searched, eight articles were included in this systematic review (SR). Of these, five retrospective studies were included in the meta- analysis. The overall meta-analysis demonstrated that individuals with periodontitis have 61% increased odds of psoriasis compared to individuals with periodontal health (OR = 1,61; 95% CI = 1,23 to 2,11, Heterogeneity: I2 = 0%, p = 0,0005). Conclusion: Psoriatic patients with periodontal disease have a higher risk of psoriasis than periodontally healthy individuals. Because of the limitations, we cannot yet establish a causal relationship between these two inflammatory diseases.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".