Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie, Präventive Zahnmedizin und Kinderzahnheilkunde
Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- - (3)
- periodontitis (2)
- biostatistics (1)
- dental (1)
- depression (1)
- genetic correlation (1)
- genetic correlation analysis (1)
- longitudinal cohort study (1)
- mendelian randomization analysis (1)
- periodontal disease (1)
- phenotyping (1)
- population-based imaging (1)
- radiomics (1)
- regression analysis (1)
- treatment planning (1)
- whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (1)
Institute
- Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie, Präventive Zahnmedizin und Kinderzahnheilkunde (4)
- Institut für Community Medicine (1)
- Institut für Diagnostische Radiologie (1)
- Institut für Klinische Chemie und Laboratoriumsmedizin (1)
- Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie/Plastische Operationen (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (1)
- Kliniken und Polikliniken für Innere Medizin (1)
- Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung, Parodontologie und Endodontologie (1)
Publisher
- Frontiers Media S.A. (1)
- Hindawi (1)
- MDPI (1)
- SAGE Publications (1)
Prediction models learn patterns from available data (training) and are then validated on new data (testing). Prediction modeling is increasingly common in dental research. We aimed to evaluate how different model development and validation steps affect the predictive performance of tooth loss prediction models of patients with periodontitis. Two independent cohorts (627 patients, 11,651 teeth) were followed over a mean ± SD 18.2 ± 5.6 y (Kiel cohort) and 6.6 ± 2.9 y (Greifswald cohort). Tooth loss and 10 patient- and tooth-level predictors were recorded. The impact of different model development and validation steps was evaluated: 1) model complexity (logistic regression, recursive partitioning, random forest, extreme gradient boosting), 2) sample size (full data set or 10%, 25%, or 75% of cases dropped at random), 3) prediction periods (maximum 10, 15, or 20 y or uncensored), and 4) validation schemes (internal or external by centers/time). Tooth loss was generally a rare event (880 teeth were lost). All models showed limited sensitivity but high specificity. Patients’ age and tooth loss at baseline as well as probing pocket depths showed high variable importance. More complex models (random forest, extreme gradient boosting) had no consistent advantages over simpler ones (logistic regression, recursive partitioning). Internal validation (in sample) overestimated the predictive power (area under the curve up to 0.90), while external validation (out of sample) found lower areas under the curve (range 0.62 to 0.82). Reducing the sample size decreased the predictive power, particularly for more complex models. Censoring the prediction period had only limited impact. When the model was trained in one period and tested in another, model outcomes were similar to the base case, indicating temporal validation as a valid option. No model showed higher accuracy than the no-information rate. In conclusion, none of the developed models would be useful in a clinical setting, despite high accuracy. During modeling, rigorous development and external validation should be applied and reported accordingly.
The Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP), a population-based study from a rural state in northeastern Germany with a relatively poor life expectancy, supplemented its comprehensive examination program in 2008 with whole-body MR imaging at 1.5 T (SHIP-MR). We reviewed more than 100 publications that used the SHIP-MR data and analyzed which sequences already produced fruitful scientific outputs and which manuscripts have been referenced frequently. Upon reviewing the publications about imaging sequences, those that used T1-weighted structured imaging of the brain and a gradient-echo sequence for R2* mapping obtained the highest scientific output; regarding specific body parts examined, most scientific publications focused on MR sequences involving the brain and the (upper) abdomen. We conclude that population-based MR imaging in cohort studies should define more precise goals when allocating imaging time. In addition, quality control measures might include recording the number and impact of published work, preferably on a bi-annual basis and starting 2 years after initiation of the study. Structured teaching courses may enhance the desired output in areas that appear underrepresented.
Background
Observational and in-vivo research suggested a bidirectional relationship between depression and periodontitis. We estimated the genetic correlation and examined directionality of causation.
Methods
The study used summary statistics from published genome wide association studies, with sample sizes ranging from 45,563 to 797,563 individuals of European ancestry. We performed linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSC) to estimate global correlation and used Heritability Estimation from Summary Statistics (ρ-HESS) to further examine local genetic correlation. Latent Heritable Confounder Mendelian randomization (LHC-MR), Causal Analysis using Summary Effect estimates (CAUSE), and conventional MR approaches assessed bidirectional causation.
Results
LDSC observed only weak genetic correlation (rg = 0.06, P-Value = 0.619) between depression and periodontitis. Analysis of local genetic correlation using ρ-HESS did not reveal loci of significant local genetic covariance. LHC-MR, CAUSE and conventional MR models provided no support for bidirectional causation between depression and periodontitis, with odds ratios ranging from 1.00 to 1.06 in either direction.
Conclusions
Results do not support shared heritability or a causal connection between depression and periodontitis.