Clinical Profile of Obstetric Patients Admitted to the Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit (MSICU) of an Inner-City Hospital in New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate temporomandibular joint (TMJ) involvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), jaw clenching force, mouth opening, and Fonseca’s questionnaire, and to establish the relationship between these findings and clinical, radiologic, and laboratory activity parameters that are unique to rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: Included in the study were 30 RA patients and 30 healthy volunteers. Jaw clenching force of the entire cases was measured with Istanbul Bite Force Recorder (kg) and the mouth opening was measured with a ruler (cm). Additionally, hand grip forces of patients with rheumatoid arthritis were measured with hand dynamometer (kg). Hand and feet graphs and TMJ MRIs of patients were obtained. MRI findings were classified as normal, mild, medium, and severe. DAS28 and sharp scores of patients were estimated. Sedimentation rate (ESR), C-Reactive protein (CRP) and rheumatoid factor (RF) were checked in the patient group and Fonseca’s questionnaires were filled in. Results: A significant difference was not observed between age, gender, and level of education of the groups. Jaw clenching force and mouth opening were established as significantly low in RA group compared to the control group (P < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between jaw clenching force, hand grip force, mouth opening, questionnaire, and MRI findings with the disease duration sharp score, DAS28, and hand grip force of the RA group (P < 0.05). However, a significant correlation was not established with ESR, CRP, and RF (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Jaw clenching force, mouth opening, and Fonseca’s questionnaire can be used as parameters pointing to TMJ involvement in patients with RA. Yet, further studies in which TMJ involvement is followed up since the onset of the disease are of necessity. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jocmr1079w
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 | 0.016 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".