MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010096319 · doi:10.4021/jocmr2009.06.1245

Prevalence of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders among Students of the University of Jordan

2009· article· en· W2010096319 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soukaina Ryalat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Jordan
KeywordsMedicineTemporomandibular jointOrthodonticsJoint (building)DentistryStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) among students of the University of Jordan. METHODS: Information about the symptoms of TMD and the possible risk factors were collected using specifically designed questionnaires. The collected data sets were treated statistically using the SPSS release 14 package. RESULTS: The results of the present investigation showed that pain in or about the ears or cheeks was the most prevalent symptom whereas locking of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) was the least prevalent. Nearly one-third of the investigated sample (31.4%, 346/1103) had no symptoms of TMD whereas 68.6% (757/1103) had at least one symptom. Students of health science studies had significantly the highest risk in developing TMJ clicking compared to students studying pure science or humanitarian studies. CONCLUSIONS: TMD is of a high prevalence among students of the University of Jordan, particularly among students of health and science studies, which signify the role of stress in the development and/or progression of TMD. The findings of this study are alarming and entailing further investigations to identify risk factors associated with TMD in order to establish measures for prevention and treatment. KEYWORDS: TMD; Clicking; Health sciences; Humanitarian studies.

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 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations65
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207