The comparison between pains, difficulties in function, and associating factors of patients in subtypes of temporomandibular disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the multidimensional properties among subtypes of painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD): myofascial pain (group I), disc displacement (group II), arthralgia (group IIIa) and osteoarthritis (group IIIb). A total of 511 patients answered a battery of questionnaires, which included questions relating to intensity and duration of pain, the Japanese version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, limitation of daily functions, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire short-form and 34 items of behavioural contributing factors. Group IIIb showed significantly the highest age in all subtypes. Those in group I had higher depression scores than those in group II (P = 0.005). Group IIIa had a lower women's ratio than in group II (P = 0.001) and the patients showed a shorter pain duration than those in groups I (P = 0.000) and II (P = 0.001). Group IIIa patients also showed lower visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings for pain descriptors 'heavy' (P = 0.002) and 'tiring' (P = 0.004) than those of group I, and 'dull' (P = 0.005), 'heavy' (P = 0.001) and 'tiring' (P = 0.005) than those of group II. Group IIIa showed lower ratios of contributing factors of 'an awareness of grinding/clenching during sleep' (P = 0.000) and 'an awareness of clenching sensation when waking up at night' (P = 0.002) than those of group I, and also showed a higher ratio of 'a liking for a hard food' (P = 0.000) and lower ratio of 'talking for a long time on the telephone' (P = 0.001) than those of group II. In conclusion, although several properties were different between subtypes, the majority of them were similar in the four subtypes of TMD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".