Comparison of the effects of secondary prevention in schoolchildren between hospitals with and without mobile dental services in Southern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of hospital clinics with and without adjunct mobile services for the delivery of secondary prevention for caries in Thai schoolchildren. A dental survey was conducted in schools served by different dental services. 711 schoolchildren were selected from primary schools in Southern Thailand by multistage cluster random sampling. WHO basic oral health survey methods were employed to evaluate three outcomes of secondary prevention: 1) Coverage of secondary prevention - all filled teeth (FT+D(F)T) among caries experienced teeth (DMFT), 2) Effectiveness of secondary prevention - successfully filled teeth (FT) among all filled teeth (FT+D(F)T) and 3) Protective effect of secondary prevention- successfully filled teeth (FT) among caries experienced teeth (DMFT). The respective percentages were 74.3, 97.5 and 72.5 in the children served by hospital-only services, and 41.3, 97.2 and 40.2 in the other group. From clustered logistic regression modeling, only the first and third outcomes were significantly different between the two access groups. This study showed that adjunct mobile service may be less effective in secondary prevention.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".