The Association Between Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorder Findings and Biting Force and Endurance in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the association between examination findings based on Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and performances on bite force and endurance tasks. METHODS: Subjects were 126 patients with temporomandibular disorder and 34 pain-free controls. A subset of patients with temporomandibular disorder (n = 56) also were evaluated following a brief conservative 4-week treatment intervention. RESULTS: A multivariate analysis of variance indicated that female patients (P <.001) but not males (P =.17) had lower bite forces than age- and gender-matched controls. Dental examination findings were significantly but modestly predictive of bite task performance (R2 = 0.175), with higher joint pain and smaller maximum unassisted jaw opening associated with lower bite force. The brief treatment interventions resulted in both self-reported and clinically determined improvements. Clinical and self-reported improvement significantly predicted pre-post treatment changes in biting force among female subjects (R2 = 0.237). Specifically, reduction in joint palpation pain and self-reported pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire short form) were the primary predictors of increases in bite force. The improvement in biting force was modest (mean = 7 lb), and the force levels of female patients remained lower than those of control subjects. Treatment did not significantly increase endurance time. DISCUSSION: The brief conservative treatments used resulted in improvements in pain and jaw opening, and 81.8% of patients reported moderate to major improvement. The modest association of the bite task with Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders examination findings and treatment improvement in this heterogeneous sample suggests that the bite and endurance tasks have limited diagnostic utility and sensitivity to treatment effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".