Collaborative WHO Xylitol Field Study in French Polynesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The value for caries prevention of partial sugar substitution by xylitol was tested in a 32-month nonrandomized comparative field study. A total of 746 6- to 12-year-old children living on three islands of the Polynesian archipelago were enrolled in the study. The children of one island representing the control group were supplied with toothbrushes and fluoridated dentifrice, and received regular instruction on oral hygiene. Otherwise, they maintained their customary dietary habits. The children of the other two islands were assigned to the xylitol group. They were enrolled in an identical oral health programme but, in addition, were regularly provided with xylitol-based sweets, i.e. chewing gums, candies, chocolate, ice lollies and gumdrops, at school on a daily basis in amounts corresponding to not more than 20 g xylitol/day. 468 children completed the study. The 195 participants of the control group showed an overall mean caries increment of 7.1 DMFS. In the xylitol group with 273 children a mean caries increment of 4.5 DMFS was measured. It is concluded that partial sugar substitution by xylitol is a useful tool in preventing caries and should be considered in addition to fluoridation and oral hygiene measures in public oral health programmes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".