Reliability and validity of Axis I of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) with proposed revisions*
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 research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD) have been employed internationally since 1992 for the study of temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders (TMD). This diagnostic protocol incorporates a dual system for assessment of TMD for Axis I physical diagnoses as well as Axis II psychological status and pain-related disability. Because the reliability and criterion validity of RDC/TMD had not yet been comprehensively characterised, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research funded in 2001 the most definitive research to date on the RDC/TMD as a U01 project entitled, 'Research Diagnostic Criteria: Reliability and Validity'. The results of this multi-site collaboration involving the University of Minnesota, the University of Washington, and the University at Buffalo were first reported at a pre-session workshop of the Toronto general session of the International Association of Dental Research on 2 July 2008. Summaries of five reports from this meeting are presented in this paper including: (i) reliability of RDC/TMD Axis I diagnoses based on clinical signs and symptoms; (ii) reliability of radiographic interpretations used for RDC/TMD Axis I diagnoses; (iii) reliability of self-report data used for RDC/TMD Axis I diagnoses; (iv) validity of RDC/TMD Axis I diagnoses based on clinical signs and symptoms; and (v) proposed revisions of the RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms.
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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