Assessment and further development of RDC/TMD Axis II biobehavioural instruments: a research programme progress report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A symposium was held in Toronto, 2008, in which research progress regarding the biobehavioural dimension of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) was presented. An extended workshop was held in April 2009 in which further recommendations were made from an expert panel, using the 2008 symposium material as a base. This paper is a summary of the 2008 symposium proceedings with elaborations based on further developments. Seven studies were conducted between 2001 and 2008, in which the following were investigated: (i) basic properties of Axis II instruments, (ii) reliability and criterion validity of Axis II instruments, (iii) expansion of predictors, (iv) metric equivalence of the depression and non-specific physical symptoms subscales in the RDC/TMD, (v) laboratory investigation of oral behaviours, (vi) field data collection of oral behaviours, and (vii) functional limitation of the jaw. Methods and results for each of these studies are described. Based on the results of these studies that have been published, as well as the direction of interim results from the few studies that await completion and publication, the biobehavioural domain of the RDC/TMD, as published in 1992, is reliable and valid. These results also provide strong evidence supporting the future growth of the biobehavioural domain as the RDC/TMD matures into subsequent protocols for both clinical and research applications.
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 | 0.079 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".