Self-reported Oral Health Status and Diabetes Outcomes in a Cohort of Diabetics in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the difference in complications among diabetics reporting oral health. Methods: A cohort study was undertaken of diabetics from the CCHS (2003; 2007-8). Self-reported oral health (SROH) was linked to health records for participants aged > 40 years (N=5,183). A series of hazards and logistic regressions were constructed to determine the risk and odds of acute/chronic complications. Participants without complications were censored at death or at March 31/ 2016. Models were adjusted for age, sex, social and behavioural factors. Results: Those reporting “poor-fair” oral health had a 30% hazard of a complication (HR 1.29 95%CI 1.03, 1.61), and a 10% odds of acute (OR 1.10 95%CI 0.81, 1.51) and 34% odds of chronic complications (OR 1.34 95%CI 1.11, 1.61), greater than those reporting “good-excellent” oral health Conclusion: Oral health status is associated with diabetes complication; this study is the first to explore the oral health-diabetes link in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".