Dental age assessment for Kuwaiti children using Demirjian's method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental age can be estimated based on the level of tooth mineralization during the developmental process. Various methods of determining chronological and radiographical stages have been used for dental age estimation. AIM: To test the validity of the standards of dental maturation of Demirjian and Goldstein (Ann Hum Biol 3:411-421, 1976) when applied to Kuwaiti children. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The sample was selected from healthy Kuwaiti children attending the routine and emergency dental clinics of the Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University. Good quality rotational pantomographs were obtained for 509 children (263 girls and 246 boys) between 3 and 14 years. Maturation of the seven permanent teeth on the left side of the mandible was determined according to the crown and root development stages described by Demirjian et al. (Hum Biol 45:211-227, 1973). RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in the mean of dental maturation between Kuwaiti and French-Canadian children (p<0.0001). Kuwaiti children were dentally delayed compared to the Canadian standards (mean dental maturation difference of 0.69 year, SD=1.25 years, CI=0.58-0.80). The mean delay in girls was 0.67 year (SD=1.30 years, CI=0.51-0.83) and in boys it was 0.71 year (SD=1.18 years, CI=0.56-0.86). Using a non-linear regression model, function formulae were developed for Kuwaiti girls and boys. CONCLUSION: The standards of dental maturation described by Demirjian and Goldstein (1976) may not be suitable for Kuwaiti children.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".