A Systematic Review of Stress in Dental Students
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
The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature on the levels, causes, and impact of stress among dental students. The investigators searched eight electronic databases: Medline, Medline in process, Psychinfo, ERIC, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. Two independent reviewers conducted the selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal for included studies. The investigators then coded both quantitative and qualitative studies using similar codes and pooled results from studies that used the Dental Environment Stress questionnaire to demonstrate dental students' stress levels. The search initially identified 4,720 studies, of which 124 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis and twenty-one were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence from this research showed that dental students experience considerable amounts of stress during their training. This stress is mainly due to the demanding nature of the training. In addition, studies suggest adverse effects of elevated stress on students' health and well-being. Most of the available literature is based on cross-sectional studies; thus, future longitudinal studies are needed to follow students throughout their curriculum. In addition, further research needs to explore and test stress management interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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