Prions in dentistry--what are they, should we be concerned, and what can we do?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To briefly review the characteristics of prions, the risk of transmission and implications for infection control in dentistry. METHODS: The literature on prion disease in the context of dentistry up to March 2005 was reviewed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, Google Scholar databases and the Web sites of the departments of health of countries affected by the disease. RESULTS: The sporadic form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is the most common human prion disease; the mean age of those affected to date is 68 years, the mortality rate is 85% within 1 year, and the average death rate is 1 per million persons. Variant CJD (vCJD) affects people (mean age 26 years) with a history of previous extended periods of residence in certain countries, mainly in the United Kingdom. Currently, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission of CJD or vCJD following casual or intimate contact or blood transfusion, nor is there evidence of iatrogenic transmission of vCJD in a health care setting. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating increased occupational risk of CJD or vCJD among health workers or clustering of vCJD among people associated with a dental practice. The risk of transmission of prions through dentistry is unknown but is thought to be very low if appropriate infection control measures are taken. CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical risk of transmission of prion disease through dental treatment emphasizes the need to maintain optimal standards of infection control and decontamination procedures for all infectious agents, including prions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".