As práticas preventivas no controle da cárie dental: uma síntese de pesquisas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A literature review was conducted on the effectiveness of measures to prevent dental caries. Articles published in scientific journals from 1980 to 1998 and indexed in MEDLINE were selected. Some 210 articles were found and their abstracts classified according to intervention strategies, type of research design, and observed effects. The most frequent preventive measures were the use of fluoride toothpaste (20.5%), fluoride mouthwash (17.2%), and occlusal sealants (18,1%). The main target population was schoolchildren 6-12 years old (53.8%) and teenagers (15.7%). Western Europe produced 58.7% of the articles on this subject, followed by United States (22.7%), Eastern Europe, Asia, Canada, and Latin America. No relationship was identified between program results (effective as opposed to ineffective studies) and the type of preventive practice and research design, indicating that other issues need to be investigated, such as the context of organizational implementation (where, how, and by whom prevention is implemented). Education in oral hygiene as a basic tool and key component in specific preventive action has received little research attention.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".