The prevalence of periodontal disease in a Romano-British population c. 200-400 AD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of moderate to severe periodontitis in an ancient British cohort c. 200-400 AD. DESIGN: Observational study to assess periodontal and other oral disease parameters. SETTING: Natural History Museum, London. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 303 skulls from a Romano-British burial site in Poundbury, Dorset were examined for evidence of dental disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was presence of moderate to severe periodontitis. Secondary outcomes included: amount of horizontal bone loss; prevalence of ante-mortem tooth loss; and presence of other dental pathologies. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of moderate to severe periodontitis was just greater than 5%. The prevalence rate remained nearly constant between ages 20 to 60, after which it rose to around 10%. The number of affected teeth increased with age. Horizontal bone loss was generally minor. Caries was seen in around 50% of the cohort, and evidence of pulpal and apical pathology was seen in around 25%. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of moderate to severe periodontitis was markedly decreased when compared to the prevalence in modern populations, underlining the potential importance of risk factors such as smoking and diabetes in determining susceptibility to progressive periodontitis in modern populations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it