The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants for caries prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the application of the modified Ottawa method by establishing the update need of a systematic review with focus on the caries preventive effect of GIC versus resin pit and fissure sealants; to answer the question as to whether the existing conclusions of this systematic review are still current; to establish whether a new update of this systematic review was needed. METHODS: Application of the Modified Ottawa method. Application date: April/May 2012. RESULTS: Four signals aligned with the criteria of the modified Ottawa method were identified. The content of these signals suggest that higher precision of the current systematic review results might be achieved if an update of the current review were conducted at this point in time. However, these signals further indicate that such systematic review update, despite its higher precision, would only confirm the existing review conclusion that no statistically significant difference exists in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealants. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study demonstrated the modified Ottawa method as an effective tool in establishing the update need of the systematic review. In addition, it was established that the conclusions of the systematic review in relation to the caries preventive effect of GIC versus resin based fissure sealants are still current, and that no update of this systematic review was warranted at date of application.
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 | 0.378 | 0.785 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".