MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984214676 · doi:10.5368/aedj.2011.3.2.4.4

IS FORMOCRESOL OBSOLETE?

2011· article· en· W1984214676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Balakrishna

Bibliographic record

VenueANNALS AND ESSENCES OF DENTISTRY · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulpotomyData scienceComputer scienceMedicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of formocresol is ubiquitous. Its use in pediatric dentistry over the century has been well established. Formaldehyde, a primary component in formocresol, is a hazardous substance and is considered a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer Health, Canada. Humans inhale and ingest formaldehyde during cellular metabolism. The human body is physiologically equipped to handle formaldehyde through multiple conversion pathways. The purpose of this review was to examine more recent research about formaldehyde metabolism, pharmacokinetics, and carcinogenicity, results indicate formaldehyde is probably not a potent human carcinogen under low exposure conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.469
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.022 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueANNALS AND ESSENCES OF DENTISTRYSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207