Dental age in Dutch children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental age was studied in a sample of 451 Dutch children (226 boys and 225 girls) according to the method of Demirjian. They were born between 1972 and 1993 and were between 3 and 17 years of age at the time a dental pantomogram (DPT) was obtained. All children were placed in the age group closest to their chronological age. All 451 DPTs were scored by one examiner. A subset of 52 DPTs was scored by a second examiner and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa were calculated. The ICC was 0.99 and Cohen's kappa 0.68. Boys and girls were analysed separately.A significant difference was found between chronological age and dental age. On average, the Dutch boys were 0.4 years and the girls 0.6 years ahead of the French-Canadian children analysed by Demirjian. Therefore, the French-Canadian standards were not considered suitable for Dutch children. New graphs for the Dutch population were constructed using a logistic curve with the equation Y = 100*{1/(1 + e(-alpha(x - x0)))} as a basis. The 90 per cent confidence interval was calculated. To determine whether the logistic curve was correct, a residual analysis was carried out and scatter plots of the differences were made. The explained variance was 93.9 per cent for the boys and 94.8 per cent for the girls. Both the residual analysis and the scatter plots indicated that the logistic curve was appropriate for use with Dutch children. In addition to the graphs, tables were produced which transfer the maturity scores calculated by the method of Demirjian into Dutch dental age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".