Repeatability of gingival crevicular fluid collection and quantification, as determined through its alkaline phosphatase activity: implications for diagnostic use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In spite of four decades of studies on gingival crevicular fluid, no data have been reported on the repeatability of gingival crevicular fluid collection and the subsequent quantification procedures. The present study reports, for the first time, on the repeatability and method error of gingival crevicular fluid collection and quantification, as determined through its alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. Diagnostic considerations are then explored. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-seven healthy subjects (17 women and 10 men; mean age ± SD, 21.2 ± 4.8 years) with optimal periodontal status were enrolled according to a blind prospective design. The gingival crevicular fluid was collected at baseline, and after 1 d, 1 wk and 3 mo. At each clinical session, two consecutive rounds of gingival crevicular fluid collection were made from each of the four maxillary incisors, allowing the recovery of resting and flow gingival crevicular fluid. The total ALP activities were determined spectrophotometrically, and repeatability and method errors for the resting, flow and overall (resting + flow) gingival crevicular fluid ALP activities were calculated, relative to the corresponding baseline levels. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen over time, although the flow gingival crevicular fluid ALP activity was generally lower than that for the resting gingival crevicular fluid. The method errors ranged from 40 to 58%, with the flow and overall gingival crevicular fluid activities showing the highest and lowest errors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reliable use of the gingival crevicular fluid ALP collection and quantification, both in research and diagnosis on an individual basis, should take into account relevant errors, and variations are to be considered as true only above relevant thresholds.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".