JOR-CORE recommendations on rehabilitation of temporomandibular disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the long history of temporomandibular disorders (TMD), the term ”rehabilitation“ has been often associated with ”occlusal rehabilitation“ indicating a specific philosophy in which occlusion is the crucial factor for TMD and that intervention on the occlusion could ”cure“ the problem. In this paper, the term rehabilitation is used to denote any medical, physical, or psychological treatment which brings or restores an individual to a normal or optimal state of health, and this revised concept therefore significantly broadens the scope of rehabilitation of TMD. The purpose of the JOR-CORE in Siena, 2009 was to critically examine the current state-of-the-science in the field of TMDs. This lead to four extensive reviews and the present summaries and recommendations for future research into rehabilitation of TMDs.
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 | 0.023 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.028 |
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".