Exploratory factor analysis of the Brazilian OHIP for edentulous subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of seven domains for the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-EDENT was not supported for its Brazilian version, making data interpretation in clinical settings difficult. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess patients' responses for the translated OHIP-EDENT in a group of edentulous subjects and to develop factor scales for application in future studies. Data from 103 conventional and implant-retained complete denture wearers (36 men, mean age of 69.1 +/- 10.3 years) were assessed using the Brazilian version of the OHIP-EDENT. Oral health-related quality of life domains were identified by factor analysis using principal component analysis as the extraction method, followed by varimax rotation. Factor analysis identified four factors that accounted for 63% of the 19 items total variance, named masticatory discomfort and disability (four items), psychological discomfort and disability (five items), social disability (five items) and oral pain and discomfort (five items). Four factors/domains of the Brazilian OHIP-EDENT version represent patient-important aspects of oral health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".