Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review is to describe and discuss the content validity of a sample of caries detection criteria reported in the literature between January 1, 1966, and May 1, 2000. Using filters to locate randomized or controlled clinical trials on dental caries, fluorides, sealants, and "restorative" care, I identified a total of 171 documents from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration's Oral Health Group (CC-OHG) special register. These articles met the following inclusion criteria: (1) Data had been collected from samples of patients or populations; and (2) dental caries was assessed clinically, and criteria were either published or described in the paper. From the selected articles, evidence tables were prepared describing each caries detection criterion. Analysis of the content validity of the criteria systems was based on evaluation of the disease process, exclusion of non-caries lesions, subjectivity, use of explorers, and drying of teeth prior to examination. This review included 29 unique criteria systems. Of those, 13 originated from the UK, 3 from the USA, 4 from Denmark, and others from the World Health Organization (WHO), Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, and Canada. Thirteen of the criteria systems either measured active and inactive early and cavitated lesions or defined separate criteria for smooth and occlusal tooth surfaces. Nine systems measured early as well as cavitated stages of the caries process, and 7 measured cavitation only. Eleven of the criteria systems provided explicit descriptions of the disease process measured or information on how to exclude non-caries from caries lesions. The use of explorers and drying and cleaning of teeth varied widely among the criteria. The majority of the newly developed criteria systems originated from Europe. In conclusion, this review of the content validity of the 29 criteria systems found substantial variability in disease processes measured, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and examination conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".