L'orthodontie fondée sur la «preuve» ou la décision thérapeutique basée sur la documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faced to an abundant literature and to various clinical situations, practitioners are nowadays invited to implement an evidence based approach. This methodology, initially developed in Canada in the 80's, is getting widely used and is perfectly suited for Orthodontics and particularly for the evaluation of interceptive treatments. It is defined as the conscentious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. This approach, which requires four different steps, will initially be presented. A methodological guide that allows to grade the evidence among different research protocols, will then be introduced. At the top of the hierarchy, randomized clinical trials have shown to be the best tools available to evaluate treatment efficiency. Different research designs are finally put forward to evaluate interceptive treatments.
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 | 0.052 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".