Recent comments in /f/science

Emberashh t1_jbbykxe wrote

Darn. Im highly curious as to whats connecting the two.

Unless its like a weird roundabout gut flora thing. May be bad oral hygiene leads to you ingesting bad stuff too much and thats how it throws things off?

3

UterineTemple t1_jbbxkma wrote

I have a strong suspicion that anyone who prioritizes taking care of themselves is likely going to be healthier than those that don’t. So don’t hoard mouthwash just yet.

290

Meatrition OP t1_jbbvogn wrote

OHS Defined:

Using Statistical Analysis System version 9.4, we combined the binary variable of brushing daily 1/0 and flossing daily 1/0, and categorised the cohort into four mutually exclusive groups: group 0 consisted of those who never brushed or flossed; group 1 consisted of those who flossed but not brushed; group 2 consisted of those who brushed but not flossed; and group 3 consisted of those who brushed daily and flossed. There were only four people in group 1 and we merged them into group 0. Thus, OHS group 0, 1 and 2 were created: 0 being the poorest oral hygiene group (poor OHS and reference); 1 being those who brushed daily but not flossed (good OHS); and 2 being those who brushed and flossed (better OHS). Because the sample size in Cox regression is event rate (that is, CVD mortality), the sample size in this study is very small between 40-50. Thus, to save the degree of freedom (statistical power), we used linear trend models whenever possible. Combining people who never brushed and brushed seldom led to the reference group (n = 41). Next, we generated two levels of OHS, namely, who only brushed daily (n = 261) (OHS level 1) and the 57 people who brushed and flossed became OHS level 2. The baseline characteristics were stratified by OHS categories and compared by non-parametric three-group comparison by Kruskal-Wallis test or chi-squared test.

2

Meatrition OP t1_jbbve1v wrote

Published: 03 February 2023 Oral hygiene, mouthwash usage and cardiovascular mortality during 18.8 years of follow-up

Sok-Ja Janket, Caitlyn Lee, …Jukka H. Meurman Show authors British Dental Journal (2023)Cite this article

6101 Accesses 280 Altmetric

Abstract

Aim(s) We tested the following hypotheses: would better oral hygiene self-care (OHS) influence cardiovascular (CVD) mortality? Will using mouthwash in addition to OHS affect CVD mortality? How does mouthwash usage impact the oral microbes?

Design and methods Among 354 dentate subjects from the Kuopio Oral Health and Heart study, the association of OHS with CVD mortality was assessed using Cox regression analyses, adjusting for age, sex, smoking, dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension and education. Additionally, whether using mouthwash would affect this relationship was evaluated.

Results In the multivariable-adjusted models, OHS was associated with a 51% reduction in the risk of CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49 [0.28-0.85]; p = 0.01). Even those who had coronary artery disease at baseline showed a marginally significant benefit (0.50 [0.24-1.06]; p = 0.07). However, mouthwash usage did not change OHS effects (HR = 0.49 [0.27-0.87]; p = 0.01), indicating no additional benefits nor detriments. All tested microbes trended to decrease with mouthwash usage in the short term, but none were statistically significant.

Conclusion Good OHS significantly lowered the risk of CVD mortality relative to poor OHS. Mouthwash usage did not show any long-term harm or benefit on CVD mortality beyond the benefits rendered by brushing and flossing.

Key points Good oral hygiene self-care (OHS) that encompasses both brushing and flossing was associated with significantly lower risk of cardiovascular mortality compared with poor OHS during a median follow-up of 18.8 years.

The patients who had coronary artery disease at baseline also experienced a marginally significant decrease in the risk of cardiovascular mortality with good OHS (p = 0.07).

The additional use of mouthwash with OHS did not influence the risk of cardiovascular mortality.

14

AutoModerator t1_jbbv84q wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

ShrimpCrackers t1_jbbv5l4 wrote

You're absolutely right though, the public transportation infrastructure in the United States in general is absolutely horrible versus most developed countries and developing countries. It's notable that Thailand is absolutely futuristic versus any subway system in America and people in Thailand only make about $7,000 per capital. Personally for me off the top of my head I can't even remember or point out a single developed democracy that has worse public transportation than the USA.

1

Ok-Distribution-9509 t1_jbbrjv3 wrote

To the people spouting "overpopulation" we as humans at the moment do nothing but overproduce, and if it doesn't sell fast enough it gets tossed to the garbage most of the time. Overpopulation is a myth

2

geoff199 OP t1_jbblgr0 wrote

From the Journal of Marketing: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222429231162367

Abstract:

An increasingly common strategy when naming new brands is to use an unconventional spelling of an otherwise familiar word (e.g., “Lyft” rather than “Lift”). However, little is known about how this brand naming strategy impacts consumers’ beliefs about the brand and, ultimately, their willingness to support it. Across eight experimental studies, we demonstrate that in general, consumers are less likely to support unfamiliar brands whose names are spelled unconventionally compared to brands that use the conventional spelling of the same word. This occurs because consumers perceive the choice of an unconventionally spelled name as an overt persuasion attempt by the marketer, and thus view the brand as less sincere. We demonstrate these effects are driven by persuasion knowledge using both mediation and moderation and show robustness by employing different types of unconventional spellings. Our studies suggest that, while marketers may choose unconventional spellings for new-to-the-world brands with the goal of positively influencing consumers’ perceptions, doing so may backfire. However, we also find that unconventionally spelled names do not produce a backfire effect when the motive for selecting the name is seen as sincere. Further, unconventionally spelled brand names may even be desirable when consumers are seeking a memorable experience.

93

AutoModerator t1_jbblall wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

QuestionableAI t1_jbbjobz wrote

https://www.who.int/news/item/09-03-2021-devastatingly-pervasive-1-in-3-women-globally-experience-violence

Violence against women remains devastatingly pervasive and
starts alarmingly young, shows new data from WHO and partners. Across
their lifetime, 1 in 3 women, around 736 million, are subjected to
physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence
from a non-partner – a number that has remained largely unchanged over
the past decade.

6