Detection of localized tooth‐related factors that predispose to periodontal infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of periodontal therapy is to produce an environment that is conducive to oral health. This is achieved by eliminating the subgingival infection and implementing supragingival plaque control measures designed to prevent the re-colonization of the sulcus. Local etiologic factors, as described above, my prevent the removal of subgingival plaque, and may even contribute to destruction of the periodontal tissues. Thus, it is crucial to be able to recognize and, when possible, eliminate any plaque-retentive factor that could contribute to disease progression. Iatrogenic factors such as subgingival margins, restorative overhangs, overcontoured restorations and unpolished surfaces can be altered. Similarly, cervical enamel projections, enamel pearls and, in certain instances, palatal grooves can be removed or recontoured to enable the patient to access the area for good plaque control. There are some things that we cannot alter. Anatomic anomalies, particularly in posterior teeth, cannot be changed. However, awareness of potential anatomic variations and early detection of them may be able to prevent future attachment loss.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".