Oro‐facial pain in the community: prevalence and associated impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of oro-facial pain (OFP) in the population and within-population subgroups and to describe the associated disability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population study. SETTING: General medical practice in South East Cheshire, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 4000 adults aged 18-65 years of whom 2504 responded (adjusted participation rate 74%). MAIN RESULTS: The overall prevalence of OFP was 26% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 24%, 28%). The prevalence of symptoms was higher in women (30%) than in men (21%) and in both sexes the highest (30%) prevalence was found in the 18-25 year age group and the lowest (22%) in the 56-65 age group. Of all the participants, 12% had pain in or around the eyes, 10% reported pain in and around the temples, 6% pain in front of the ears and 6% pain in the jaw joints. Only 46% of the participants with OFP had sought professional advice from a dentist or general medical practitioner and 17% had to take time off work or were unable to carry out normal activities because of pain. CONCLUSIONS: OFP is a common symptom experienced by a quarter of the adult population, of whom only 46% seek treatment. The prevalence is higher in women and younger age groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".