MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024877971 · doi:10.1155/2013/102816

Laser Doppler Blood-Flow Signals from Human Teeth during an Alignment and Leveling Movement Using a Superelastic Archwire

2013· article· en· W2024877971 on OpenAlexaff
Alvaro Wagner Rodrigues Salles, Adriana Mirian Cotrim Salles, Gessé Eduardo Calvo Nogueira

Bibliographic record

VenueISRN Dentistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsLaser Doppler velocimetryMedicineBlood flowBasal (medicine)DentistryOrthodonticsMaxillary central incisorMaterials scienceCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. The purpose of this study was to examine alterations in blood-flow signals (BFS) from human teeth during an alignment and leveling phase (superelastic wire 0.014'') in a clinical orthodontic treatment using laser doppler flowmetry (LDF). Materials and Methods. Recordings were made in 12 maxillary left central incisors. The basal value of the BFS from each tooth (without orthodontic forces) was compared with the corresponding values of BFS during four periods of observation: 20 minutes, 48 hours, 72 hours, and one month after the activation of the orthodontic appliance. Results. Statistically significant decrease of BFS was observed at 20 minutes, 48 hours, and 72 hours (P < 0.05). No differences were found comparing BFS on day 30 and the corresponding basal values. Conclusion. Under real clinical conditions, a significant decrease in BFS was verified during the initial phase of the treatment, followed by a recovery on day 30.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISRN DentistrySame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207