Can nonstandardized bitewing radiographs be used to assess the presence of alveolar bone loss in epidemiologic studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare periodontitis-associated alveolar bone loss assessment by standardized and nonstandardized radiographs in clinical and epidemiologic studies. METHODS: Participants included 37 patients aged 21-66 years with prior nonstandardized bitewing radiographs scheduled to receive bitewing radiographs as part of their next routine dental care visit. Standardized bitewing radiographs were taken with a Rinn film holder to position the film in the mouth and align the X-rays so that they were at 90 degrees to the film. Before taking the radiograph the bite was registered in centric relation using a polyether impression material. One registered dental hygienist took and processed all the standardized radiographs. One dentist read all radiographs using a viewing box, magnifying lens, and periodontal probe with William's markings. Radiographic bone loss was measured to the closest millimeter at mesial and distal sites of the posterior teeth excluding third molars. The examining dentist was blinded to the participant's name, age, gender, or if the radiograph was standardized or nonstandardized. RESULTS: Mean bone loss (+/- SD) was similar in the standardized and nonstandardized groups (1.60 +/- 0.72 mm versus 1.64 +/- 0.85 mm), and the correlation was high (r = 0.95). Periodontitis was defined as present if the participant had at least one site with 3, 4 and 5 mm bone loss. The Kappa statistics for concordance using these three cutoffs were good and ranged from 0.60 to 0.65. The sensitivity ranged from 72.7 to 80.8% and specificity from 88.5 to 90.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Periodontitis assessed as mean alveolar bone loss or the prevalence of disease based on alveolar bone loss can be accurately and reliably evaluated from nonstandardized radiographs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".