Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the principal features of focal cemento-osseous dysplasia (FocCOD) by systematic review (SR) and to compare their frequencies between four global groups. METHODS: Alternative names for FocCOD were used as search terms. The databases searched were the PubMed interface of Medline and LILACS (Literature Index for Latin-America and the Caribbean; Biblioteca Regional de Medicina (BIREME)). Only those reports of FocCODs which occurred in a series in the reporting authors' caseload were considered. All cases used radiographs and were confirmed fibro-osseous lesions histopathologically. RESULTS: Of the 20 series considered, 10 were included in the SR. Five SR-included series were of East Asian communities. 64% of all SR-included cases were found incidentally. FocCOD predominantly affects females and the mandible. The three predominant radiological presentations varied significantly between reports. CONCLUSIONS: The two at-risk global communities appear to be East Asians and those of black African origin. Although there appears to be little difference between East Asians and non-East Asians, the significant differences between them with regards to the predominant radiological presentation could suggest that either all communities vary in their presentation or that most, if not all, did not reflect the true frequency within their communities. Long-term follow-up of large series that would have revealed the long-term outcomes of FocCODs was lacking. This is necessary because of both FocCOD's predilection of edentulous areas, increasingly required for osseointegrated implants, and its wide differential diagnosis, which includes some lesions normally treated by surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".