Knowledge and orientations of medical interns toward periodontal disease in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: This study was conducted to assess the periodontal knowledge, orientations of Saudi medical interns and the medical curriculum. Study Population and Methodology: Questionnaires were distributed to 221 medical interns chosen randomly from two major educational institutions in Saudi Arabia. Questions were developed from literature reviews. The questionnaire had five true/false knowledge items, and eight Likert-scale questions. Data were analyzed by computerized SPSS (version 20). Level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Of the 221 respondents, 66% were male and 34% were female. Most of the participants were 24 years old (48%). About 40% of the interns answered all five true/false general knowledge questions correctly, nearly half of the respondents (49.8%) reported they never asked patients if they were diagnosed with periodontal disease, 93.2% reported not receiving any training about periodontal disease in medical school, 23.5% reported they would feel absolutely uncomfortable performing a simple periodontal examination, about one-third of interns (29.4%) agreed that patients expect physicians to discuss/screen for periodontal disease, 43.9% felt that discussing/evaluating the periodontal status of their patients was peripheral to their role as physicians, nearly half of interns (48.4%) reported never screening patients for periodontal disease, and 33% stated they never referred patients to dentists. Conclusion: Medical interns were not prepared nor trained to screen patients for periodontal disease. They had limited knowledge about the association between periodontal health and general health. Oral health training as part of the medical curriculum is strongly recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".