Cost-effectiveness simulation of a universal publicly funded sealants application program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: No cost-effectiveness evaluation of pit and fissure sealants has ever been carried out in Quebec. The objective of this study was to simulate a publicly funded program of pit and fissure administration, either in the public or private sectors, and compare these hypothetical situations with the current one, i.e., a publicly funded, school-based selective program. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using a virtual population of 8-year-old children that was monitored over a time span of 10 years. The incremental cost per child without decay was computed. RESULTS: The current situation and a publicly funded program in the public sector were more cost-effective than the other option: a universal, publicly funded, private practice. However, the most cost-effective option varied, depending on the incidence of decay and the proportion of children identified as being at high-risk for decay. CONCLUSION: By implementing a school-based program of universal pit and fissure sealant application, access to preventive dental care could be improved at an equivalent cost-effectiveness to the current one.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".