The oral health of ageing baby boomers: a comparison of adults aged 45–64 and those 65 years and older
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it