ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Examining Electronic Health Records to Investigate Sex Differences in Oral Diseases and Conditions.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Examining Electronic Health Records to Investigate Sex Differences in Oral Diseases and Conditions.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSexual dimorphism has been shown to influence disease predisposition and/or progression, although population-based studies in dental, oral, and craniofacial (DOC) diseases and conditions are limited. This study aimed to identify sex-based differences in DOC diseases/conditions using two large health data repositories.
methodsRetrospective cross-sectional study of health record data obtained from adult participants (> 18 years old) in the NIH All of Us Research Program (n = 254,700) and the BigMouth Data Repository (n ≈ 4.7 million). The number of males and females presenting each selected condition in each database was recorded. Sex-specific association analysis for each condition was performed using chi-square tests (α ≤ 0.0002). Female-to-male odds ratio (OR) and confidence intervals were also calculated.
resultsSignificant sex-related differences were found for 61/87 concepts (70%), with 33 concepts (54%) showing female bias and 28 (46%) showing male bias (p ≤ 0.0002). Analysis of BigMouth data showed sex bias for 90/230 (39%) concepts investigated, of which 87 (97%) showed female bias and 3 (3%) showed male bias (p ≤ 0.0002).
conclusionsThis study provides evidence of sex bias in numerous oral and dental conditions in the populations studied. Additional studies in other populations might provide further insight into the role of sexual dimorphism in these conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.