A 5‐year follow‐up of older adults residing in long‐term care facilities: utilisation of a comprehensive dental programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study will compare the clinical outcomes of 139 elders residing in long-term care (LTC) who received dental treatment with those who did not receive care under a comprehensive dental programme over 5 years. BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented very poor oral health and limited access to dental care among frail older adults residing in LTC facilities. The University of British Columbia and Providence Healthcare developed a comprehensive dental programme to serve elderly LTC residents within seven Vancouver hospitals. Since 2002, the Geriatric Dentistry Programme has provided annual oral health assessments and access to comprehensive dental care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive oral health assessment was provided using CODE (an index of Clinical Oral Disorders in Elders). A change in oral health status (improvement or worsening) was evaluated by measuring CODE scores including caries and periodontal condition, and other aspects of the dentition. RESULTS: Eighty-three residents received dental treatment of some form over the 5 years, while 56 did not receive any treatment beyond an annual examination. The percentage of residents initially recommended for treatment in 2002 was 97%, which declined to 70-73% after the 3rd year. The percentage of residents treated increased after the first year and remained at 56-72% thereafter. The comparison between CODE scores from baseline and 5 years later showed an improvement for those receiving care (p = 0.02, chi(2) = 7.9, df = 2). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, residents who did consent and receive care showed an improvement in their oral health status after 5 years.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".