MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influência da cooperação no planejamento e tempo de tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II

2005· article· pt· W1993032052 on OpenAlexaff
Fábio Rogério Torres Maria, Guilherme Janson, Marcos Roberto de Freitas, José Fernando Castanha Henriques

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial · 2005
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As alternativas de tratamento ortodôntico em casos apresentando Classe II completa bilateral são bastante variadas e podem ou não incluir extrações. Quando a opção é por extrações,o protocolo incluindo apenas dois pré-molares facilita enormemente a correção sagital da Classe II. Ao optarmos pela correção por meio da distalização bilateral dos segmentos posteriores, fica bastante evidente uma maior demanda mecânica e principalmente uma exigência muito maior por cooperação para que o sucesso do tratamento seja alcançado. Desta forma, decidiu-se avaliar e comparar o nível de cooperação apresentado por 73 pacientes apresentando Classe II completa, planejados sem extrações ou com duas extrações no arco dentário superior, e assim verificar se a conduta terapêutica inicial, associada à cooperação, teve influência nos resultados finais. Os resultados demonstraram que a decisão terapêutica baseada na correção sagital da Classe II sem extrações, baseada em mecânicas distalizadoras extrabucais, ficou nitidamente refém da cooperação dos pacientes, forçando este grupo a um replanejamento para que o sucesso terapêutico pudesse ser alcançado, prolongando significativamente o tempo de tratamento ortodôntico.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia FacialSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207