Assessing the oral health of an ageing population: methods, challenges and predictors of survey participation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine predictors of participation and to describe the methodological considerations of conducting a two-stage population-based oral health survey. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional survey (telephone interview and clinical oral examination) of community-dwelling adults aged 45-64 and ≥65 living in Nova Scotia, Canada was conducted. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 21% for the interview and 13.5% for the examination. A total of 1141 participants completed one or both components of the survey. Both age groups had higher levels of education than the target population; the age 45-64 sample also had a higher proportion of females and lower levels of employment than the target population. Completers (participants who completed interview and examination) were compared with partial completers (who completed only the interview), and stepwise logistic regression was performed to examine predictors of completion. Identified predictors were as follows: not working, post-secondary education and frequent dental visits. CONCLUSION: Recruitment, communications and logistics present challenges in conducting a province-wide survey. Identification of employment, education and dental visit frequency as predictors of survey participation provide insight into possible non-response bias and suggest potential for underestimation of oral disease prevalence in this and similar surveys. This potential must be considered in analysis and in future recruitment strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it