MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032753818 · doi:10.1159/000261127

Caries Prevalence and Length of Residency in Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Communities

2009· article· en· W2032753818 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Clovis, J.A. Hargreaves, Gordon W. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueCaries Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaInstitute of Health EconomicsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryMedicineResidenceFluorideDemographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The caries experience of grade 6 Canadian schoolchildren was examined related to length of residence in non-fluoridated Camrose (0.23 ppm) and adjacent fluoridated Wetaskiwin (1.08 ppm). The mean age was 11.94 +/- 0.65 years, 115 being examined in Camrose and 89 in Wetaskiwin. The mean DMFT and DMFS values were similar in both the non-fluoridated and fluoridated communities with DMFT of 2.39 and 2.65 and DMFS of 3.40 and 3.54, respectively. When a minimum 5-year residency requirement was imposed, the data changed, showing for those children with 5-year residency DMFT values of 2.43 and 2.26 and DMFS values of 3.35 and 2.79, respectively, for non-fluoridated Camrose and fluoridated Wetaskiwin. Although the fluoridated community had 17% less surfaces with caries, differences between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities were not statistically significant. Within the fluoridated community, differences in DMFT and DMFS between children resident less than 5 and greater than 5 years were statistically significant (DMFT p less than 0.05; DMFS p less than 0.01). When comparing regions where adjacent communities exist, with and without water fluoridation, and in making decisions on fluoride supplementation levels for children who have changed residency to such communities, it is important that this type of information is taken into account.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaries ResearchSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207