MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987349252 · doi:10.1159/000261084

Collaborative WHO Xylitol Field Study in French Polynesia

2009· article· en· W1987349252 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCaries Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylitolMedicineDentistryOral hygieneDentifriceOral healthChewing gumFood scienceFluorideChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.402 · 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