Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important consequences of oral diseases and disorders is a reduction in the ability to chew. This paper reports the results of a study of changes in chewing ability in a population of community-dwelling older adults who were aged 50 years and over when first recruited. Data were collected at baseline, and at 3 and 7-year follow-ups using an index of chewing capacity consisting of six indicator foods, a four-item measure of the psychosocial impact of chewing dysfunction and a single-item rating of satisfaction with chewing ability. The percentage of subjects who reported a problem chewing increased from 24.0% at baseline to 25.2% at 3 years and 33.8% at 7 years. The increase in prevalence over 7 years was 5.3% in dentate subjects aged 64 years and under at baseline and 26.1% in edentulous subjects aged 65 years and over. Overall, there were increases in the proportion reporting some psychosocial impact and the proportion reporting dissatisfaction with their ability to chew. Patterns of change with respect to these variables differed across groups defined by age and dental status. Change scores computed from baseline and the 7-year follow-up indicated considerable within-subject change, with some individuals improving and some deteriorating. However, they confirmed that overall there was a decline in oral functioning in this population and that older edentulous subjects showed the greatest propensity to change. Factors which predict the patterns of change identified by this study need to be explored in order to enhance our understanding of changes in the chewing ability of this population as it ages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".