Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus is a chronic metabolic disease that affects millions of people worldwide, and is increasing in prevalence. It manifests at an earlier age than Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and therefore the assumption is made that complications are more severe and widespread. Periodontitis is a complex infectious disease of the oral cavity that results in connective tissue and alveolar bone destruction. Similarly to diabetes, it is multifactorial, affects all ages but typically manifests in adulthood. The aim of this thesis was to determine the association between the two diseases, as well as the risk factors for developing periodontitis in type 1 diabetics. Most of the recent research published focuses on type 2 diabetes and periodontitis, likely due to a clearer manifestation of the disease. However, there is research linking the two diseases and the aim of this systemic review was to examine, critique and discuss the up-to-date research. It is known that both these diseases take a heavy toll of patient health, quality of life and the financial health care systems, and therefore determining the association between the two may provide better treatment guidelines and knowledge for medical practitioners that would potentially decrease these burdens. To my knowledge, there are no papers published which have assessed these aims collectively. The PRISMA protocol was used for selection of articles and these were further assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for risk of bias. All articles assessed were up-to-date (published within the last 10 years). The results concluded that type 1 diabetics had a higher prevalence for periodontitis compared to non-diabetes and type 2 diabetics. Type 1 diabetics also had a more severe manifestation of periodontitis compared to non-diabetics and type 2 diabetics. Additionally, the main risk factors found for the development of periodontitis in type 1 diabetic patients were age, gender, smoking, education and income. These findings imply a bi-directional relationship between the two diseases, and are significant for medical practitioners to be aware of when treating diabetic patients. As this would improve patient satisfaction, health and decrease the financial burden of these 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".