Dental health and disease in patients with haemophilia – a case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of patients with hereditary bleeding disorders in dentistry causes considerable problems. This study examined different aspects of dental health or disease of Lithuanian children and adults with haemophilia and compared them with the general population. Two study groups of cases and controls were formed. Cases were recruited through census sampling and controls were randomly chosen from the general population matched for gender, age and place of residence. Dental health of permanent and deciduous dentitions was assessed by one examiner employing the WHO Criteria for Oral Health Surveys. The following aspects of dental health/disease were considered: overall caries experience, treatment experience, unmet dental treatment needs and the presence of functional dentition. Data were collected from 76 patients with haemophilia among which 27 were children and 49 were adults and a control group of 76 subjects comprising 30 children and 46 adults. Children with haemophilia had a significantly lower overall caries experience and less unmet dental treatment needs in deciduous teeth as compared to healthy children. In permanent dentitions, overall caries experience, unmet dental treatment needs or treatment experience did not differ between cases and controls either in older children or adult cohorts. There were no differences between the study groups regarding the functional dentition-related indices. Healthier deciduous teeth were observed in children with haemophilia than in children without haemophilia, but other dental health or disease-related outcomes did not differ between cases and controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".