MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring chewing ability in randomized controlled trials with edentulous populations wearing implant prostheses*

2006· review· en· W1998094440 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

VenueJournal of Oral Rehabilitation · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasticatory forceMasticationMedicineDentistryRandomized controlled trialOral healthImplantOrthodonticsPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the authors review methods commonly used to measure the masticatory ability of patients wearing conventional and implant prostheses. Measurement approaches are viewed in two broad categories: laboratory based and patient based. The laboratory based measures discussed are mastication time, particle size, force measurements, patterns of jaw movement and electromyographic (EMG) bursts and total EMG activity. Patient based measures include satisfaction and chewing difficulty. Oral health-related quality of life measures and diet/nutrition variables are briefly mentioned. Patient-based outcomes are recommended as the most appropriate variables of masticatory efficiency.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.250 · 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