MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in dental fluorosis following the cessation of water fluoridation

2006· article· en· W2077458884 on OpenAlexafffund
D. Christopher Clark, Jay D. Shulman, Gerardo Maupomé, Steven M. Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFluoride Effects and Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDental fluorosisFluorideWater fluoridationDentistryEnvironmental healthDentifrice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in the prevalence of dental fluorosis, and in perceptions of aesthetic concerns due to dental fluorosis after water fluoridation ceased. METHODS: Schoolchildren in second and third grades were examined in 1993-94, 1996-97 and 2002-03 to determine changes in the prevalence of dental fluorosis following fluoridation cessation of the public water supplies in 1992. The Thylstrup-Fejerskov Index (TFI) was used to quantify dental fluorosis. Perceptions of aesthetics were assessed by questionnaires which were sent home to parents. Residence and dental histories were confirmed on all children to determine the extent of exposure to all types of fluorides. Comparisons between the three surveys were used to establish the influence of fluoridated water and other fluoride sources on the occurrence and severity of dental fluorosis. Aesthetic ratings from parents were used to assess the aesthetic conditions of maxillary anterior teeth across the three surveys. RESULTS: When fluoride was removed from the water supply in 1992, the prevalence and severity of TFI scores decreased significantly from the 1993-94 survey cycle when compared with the 1996-97 and 2002-03 survey cycles. The use of fluoride supplements and fluoride dentifrice also decreased during this study period. Analyses were unable to determine the influence of these different fluoride exposures on the changes in TFI scores over time. Comparisons of aesthetic ratings from parents between survey cycles failed to show any significant differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Dentistry And Oral EpidemiologySame topicFluoride Effects and RemovalFrench-language works237,207