MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080531087 · doi:10.1159/000262087

Three-Year Randomized Trial of Professionally Applied Topical Fluoride Gel Comparing Annual and Biannual Applications with/without Prior Prophylaxis

2009· article· en· W2080531087 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Johnston, Donald W. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueCaries Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryRandomized controlled trialFluoridePermanent teethClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The twice yearly application to children's teeth of acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel in dental trays preceded by a professionally rendered 'dental prophylaxis' has become the standard and most commonly used dental chairside procedure for prevention of dental caries. This study was a randomized, 3-year, community-based clinical trial of professionally applied APF gel involving the use and non-use of a prior dental prophylaxis and annual and biannual APF applications for children in age groups 6-7 (n = 176) and 10-11 (n = 153) years initially, who are likely at high risk of future dental caries. The 3-year results of this study show no significant effect on dental caries reduction of either a prior prophylaxis or annual versus biannual APF gel applications. A significant reduction in the frequency of provision of these dental services, limited to high caries risk patients only, is recommended.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaries ResearchSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207