Cemento-osseous dysplasia of the jaw bones: key radiographic features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess possible diagnostic differences between general dentists (GPs) and oral and maxillofacial radiologists (RGs) in the identification of pathognomonic radiographic features of cemento-osseous dysplasia (COD) and its interpretation. METHODS: Using a systematic objective survey instrument, 3 RGs and 3 GPs reviewed 50 image sets of COD and similarly appearing entities (dense bone island, cementoblastoma, cemento-ossifying fibroma, fibrous dysplasia, complex odontoma and sclerosing osteitis). Participants were asked to identify the presence or absence of radiographic features and then to make an interpretation of the images. RESULTS: RGs identified a well-defined border (odds ratio (OR) 6.67, P < 0.05); radiolucent periphery (OR 8.28, P < 0.005); bilateral occurrence (OR 10.23, P < 0.01); mixed radiolucent/radiopaque internal structure (OR 10.53, P < 0.01); the absence of non-concentric bony expansion (OR 7.63, P < 0.05); and the association with anterior and posterior teeth (OR 4.43, P < 0.05) as key features of COD. Consequently, RGs were able to correctly interpret 79.3% of COD cases. In contrast, GPs identified the absence of root resorption (OR 4.52, P < 0.05) and the association with anterior and posterior teeth (OR 3.22, P = 0.005) as the only key features of COD and were able to correctly interpret 38.7% of COD cases. CONCLUSIONS: There are statistically significant differences between RGs and GPs in the identification and interpretation of the radiographic features associated with COD (P < 0.001). We conclude that COD is radiographically discernable from other similarly appearing entities only if the characteristic radiographic features are correctly identified and then correctly interpreted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".