Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue, Papas et al. (2011) report results of the “Prevention of Adult Caries Study” (PACS). It assessed caries lesion increments among 983 adults in a Phase III randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of 10% (w/v) chlorhexidine diacetate (CH) tooth coating (Prevora®, CHX Technologies, Toronto, ON, Canada), followed by methacrylate sealant. No difference was observed in net caries increment between individuals receiving treatment and control individuals receiving a placebo. This is disappointing, given the great need for adult caries-preventive methods, encouragement by NIDCR and CDC (Horowitz, 2004; CDC, 2006), and funding by NIDCR. Surely, the authors and Journal are to be congratulated for publishing negative findings and avoiding publication bias. The trial confirms the failure of this CH-varnish vehicle in smaller, less rigorous, trials (Banting et al., 2000; Forgie et al., 2000).
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.012 |
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".