A paired comparison of dental care in Canadians with Down syndrome and their siblings without Down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that, controlling for age, Canadians with Down syndrome (DS) have dental care that is different to that of their siblings without DS. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of parents of children with DS among members of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society (CDSS), using a validated questionnaire. Parents were asked to complete two versions of the questionnaire: one for their child with DS and another for the sibling closest in age without DS. A total of 2327 questionnaires were distributed; 1221 questionnaires for people with DS and 950 for siblings without DS were returned. A paired analysis (McNemar test) of dental care indicators was performed on data from 938 family pairs, stratifying for age. RESULTS: For all the dental care indicators and age groups, many respondents indicated the same behaviours or experiences in their child with DS and a sibling without DS. However, depending on the particular form of dental care and the age group, 0-47% of families reported discordant dental care experiences for their child with DS and a sibling without DS. The greatest differences were observed for yearly consults (P = 0.029), restorations (P < 0.001), fluoride therapy (P = 0.013) and extractions (P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: These observations suggest that compared to their siblings without DS, Canadians with DS are receiving different dental care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".