MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143946940 · doi:10.1155/2011/813525

Orthodontic Treatment Need and Complexity among Nigerian Adolescents in Rivers State, Nigeria

2011· article· en· W2143946940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elfleda Angelina Aikins, Oluranti Olatokunbo daCosta, Chukwudi Ochi Onyeaso, Michael Chukwudi Isiekwe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dentistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconMedicinePopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Descriptive statisticsCross-sectional studyFamily medicineDentistryEnvironmental healthGeographyStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. The assessment of orthodontic treatment need and complexity are necessary for informed planning of orthodontic services. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess these parameters using the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) in a Nigerian adolescent population in a region where orthodontic services are just being established. Methods. Six hundred and twelve randomly selected Nigerian adolescents aged 12 to 18 years were examined using the ICON in their school compounds. Descriptive statistics were employed in the data analysis. Results. Out of a total of 38.1% of the population found to need orthodontic treatment, there were more males and older adolescents. The overall mean ICON score for the population was 39.7 ± 25.3 SD with males having statistically higher mean ICON score. The grades of complexity of the population were 21.6% for very difficult and difficult, 7.5% moderate, and 70.9% mild/easy. Conclusions. Although just over a third of the adolescents were found to have a need for treatment, about a quarter of them were found to have difficult and very difficult complexity grades indicating a need for specialist care. The authors recommend the training of more specialist orthodontists in this region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DentistrySame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207