MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083308945 · doi:10.1016/j.medici.2015.01.003

Do hemophiliacs have a higher risk for dental caries than the general population?

2015· article· en· W2083308945 on OpenAlex
Rūta Žaliūnienė, Jolanta Aleksejūnienė, Vilma Brukienė, Vytautė Pečiulienė

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationDentistryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine if patients with hemophilia were at increased risk for dental decay as compared to the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Census sampling was used in this case-control study to recruit cases (patients with hemophilia) and a control group individuals recruited randomly from the general population, which were matched with cases based on gender, age and place of residence. Clinical examinations included dental health and salivary assessments (flow rate, buffer capacity, caries-associated bacteria) and a structured questionnaire which inquired about socioeconomic status and dental health-related behaviors. RESULTS: In the deciduous dentition, the overall caries experience (dmf) differed statistically significantly (P=0.003) between the hemophiliacs (2.6±2.6) and their matched healthy controls (6.1±2.5). Bivariate analyses did not reveal significant differences between cases and controls regarding salivary functions, except that higher bacteriological counts were found in healthy controls in deciduous dentitions than in patients with hemophilia (P=0.019). Children without hemophilia were from higher socioeconomic status families than hemophiliacs (P=0.004), but such differences were not found for adults (P=0.090). When compared to healthy adults, adult hemophiliacs had more gum bleeding at rest (P<0.001) as well as during their tooth brushing (P=0.007) and they also consumed more soft drinks than controls (P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Better dental health was observed in children with hemophilia as compared to children without it. There were no differences in dental health between adult hemophiliacs and healthy controls from the general population. None of the linear multiple regression models confirmed hemophilia to be an additional caries risk when it was controlled for other caries determinants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.301 · 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