Determining the minimally important difference for the Oral Health Impact Profile‐20
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
In the context of clinical trials, measurement of change is critical. The aim of this study was to determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) when used with partially dentate patients undergoing treatment that included the provision of removable partial dentures. In a prospective clinical trial, 51 consecutive patients were provided with removable partial dentures. In addition to demographic and dental status data, patients completed an OHIP-20 prior to treatment. One month postoperatively, patients completed a post-treatment OHIP-20 and a global transition scale. Domains assessed in the global transition scale were appearance, ability to chew food, oral comfort, and speech. The MID for the OHIP-20 was calculated using the anchor-based approach. From the initial sample of 51 patients, 44 completed post-treatment questionnaires and were included in the analysis. Change scores in the four transition domains indicated that new dentures had a positive impact in the majority of subjects, especially in perceived impact on chewing and appearance. The study provided a guideline as to what constitutes the MID for the OHIP-20. This benchmark can be used when interpreting the impact of clinical intervention for replacing missing teeth and for power calculation in statistical analyses.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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