Clinical efficacy of a new tooth whitening dentifrice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this double-blind clinical study was to investigate the tooth whitening efficacy of a variation in formula of a commercially available dentifrice (Colgate Total Toothpaste). The variation (Colgate Total Plus Whitening Toothpaste) was the addition of high cleaning silica to the existing formulation. Following a baseline examination for extrinsic tooth stain, qualifying adult male and female subjects from the Mississauga, Ontario, Canada area were randomized into two treatment groups which were balanced for gender, age and level of extrinsic tooth stain. Subjects were instructed to brush their teeth twice daily (morning and evening) for one minute with their assigned dentifrice, using a soft-bristled toothbrush. Examinations for extrinsic tooth stain were repeated after six weeks' use of the study dentifrices. Ninety-three (93) subjects complied with the protocol and completed the entire study. At the six-week examination, subjects assigned to the new dentifrice formulation group exhibited statistically significantly lower levels of extrinsic tooth stain area and extrinsic tooth stain intensity than did those subjects assigned to the Colgate Total Toothpaste group.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".