Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the negative psychosocial impacts of dental anxiety in a sample of dentally fearful and anxious individuals recruited from the general population. The associations between psychosocial impacts, dental anxiety scale (DAS) scores and other severe fears were explored. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-five subjects who were anxious or fearful about dental treatment were divided into low and high general fear groups based on the number of other severe fears they reported. Negative psychosocial impacts were assessed using a modified form of the scale developed by Kent et al. (1996). This consisted of three dimensions: psychological reactions, social relationships and avoidance/inhibition. Other measures included self-ratings of oral, general and emotional health and scales to assess self-esteem and morale. RESULTS: Overall, 93.1% of subjects reported one or more impacts. Those in the high-fear group had higher psychosocial impact scores than those in the low-fear group (means of 4.19 vs. 2.85; P < 0.05). Differences were most marked with respect to psychological consequences and avoidance/inhibition. The high-fear group had scores indicative of lower self-esteem and lower morale. Forward stepwise linear and logistic regression analyses indicated that both dental anxiety and general fearfulness contributed to these negative outcomes. However, the latter was a more consistent predictor in that it entered six of seven models generated while the former entered only four. CONCLUSION: The study indicated that dental fear and anxiety have pervasive psychosocial consequences, and that these are more marked among subjects with high levels of general fearfulness. It also provided evidence of the validity of a modified form of the psychosocial impact scale developed by Kent et al. (1996).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".