The oral health of ageing baby boomers: a comparison of adults aged 45–64 and those 65 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the oral health status of adults aged 45-64 (baby boomers) and those aged 65 and older. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional survey of adults living independently in rural and urban settings in Nova Scotia, Canada was conducted. Using random digit dialing, calibrated interviewers completed a telephone survey, and clinicians calibrated to WHO standards conducted clinical examinations. Weighting was used to correct for sampling bias. RESULTS: 747 community dwelling adults completed both the clinical exam and the questionnaire (n=411, age 45-64; n=336, age 65 or older). Rates of edentulism were low (2.6% aged 45-64; 15.7% aged 65+; p<0.001). Untreated root caries was greater in the older dentate group (19.7 vs. 10.1%; p<0.001). Being 65 years of age or older was identified as a predictor of increased decayed, missing, filled teeth, presence of decayed and/or filled roots and presence of attachment loss≥4 mm, but was not a significant predictor of presence of untreated coronal caries. CONCLUSIONS: A falling rate of edentulism and a higher risk for root caries with increasing age may predict the need for more complex dental care as our population ages.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".