Comparison among dental, skeletal and chronological development in HIV-positive children: a radiographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to evaluate skeletal, dental and chronological development in an HIV-positive group of children, as compared with a control group, during a four-year period. Panoramic radiographs and hand and wrist radiographs of 60 children were taken. The children, of both sexes, aged 5 years and 2 months to 15 years and 5 months, were selected as follows: 30 HIV-positive volunteers who had acquired the disease vertically, and 30 volunteers who did not present the HIV infection or any other systemic disease. All radiographs were technically standardized and analyzed according to criteria established by Nolla (dental age), Greulich and Pyle (bone age), and Eklöf and Ringertz (bone age). The results were submitted to Student's t-test at a 5% level of significance. Based on the comparison between the chronological age and the dental or the skeletal age, significant differences were observed between HIV-positive and HIV-negative children, both in 1999 and in 2003 (p < or = 0.05). Considering the results obtained with the methodology used, it was concluded that HIV-positive children of both sexes presented delayed bone development despite the administration of antiretroviral drugs, and that HIV-positive female children presented younger dental ages compared with their chronological ages in 1999 and in 2003; and HIV-positive males, in 1999.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".