Dental neglect and dental health among 26‐year‐olds in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test a modification of a previously-reported six-item dental neglect scale and examine its association with dental health and service-use among young adults. METHODS: Of the 980 26-year-old participants in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, 973 completed the scale and 930 underwent dental examination. Sociodemographic and dental service-use data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Factor analysis showed that five of the original six items loaded on the scale, and responses to those items were summed to give a dental neglect scale score for each participant. Scale scores were normally distributed (mean=13.0; SD=3.6; range 5 to 25), and a median split created higher and lower dental neglect groups. A higher proportion of the higher neglect group group: (i) were male; (ii) rated their dental health and dental appearance as below average; (iii) brushed their teeth infrequently; (iv) had extensive plaque deposits; (v) used dental services only when they had a problem; (vi) had not recently seen a dentist; (vii) had lost at least one permanent tooth because of caries, and (viii) had a greater number of decayed tooth surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: Although further examination of its validity and reliability is indicated, the dental neglect scale appears to hold promise for use in dental health promotion, not only in highlighting population groups or individuals who would benefit from intensive health promotion efforts, but also in the evaluation of health promotion interventions.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it