Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2004 American Dental Association (ADA)/US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) radiographic selection criteria and guidelines were reviewed and compared with the prior radiographic selection criteria and guidelines. The authors reviewed the publications from the US FDA, US Department of Health and Human Services, and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. The positions outlined by the Canadian Dental Association and the European Commission were also reviewed and compared to US guidelines. The FDA guidelines were first published in 1987, and several changes have been made to them over the years. Recent literature reveals that the general compliance of these guidelines is very low, especially within dental schools in the United States and Canada. Little is known about the compliance outside of the dental school environment; however, it is expected to be low for various reasons. In 2007, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) revised its estimates of tissue radiosensitivity, which resulted in effective doses of dental radiographs 32% to 422% higher than the 1990 ICRP guidelines. Flow charts summarizing the latest guidelines were developed to facilitate general compliance among practitioners. Based on the literature reviewed and the recent ICRP findings, it would be prudent for dental health care professionals to follow dental radiographic guidelines.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".