Oral health status of long-term care residents-a vulnerable population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an observational, cross-sectional survey of the oral health status of adults ≥ 45 years of age in rural and urban long-term care (LTC) facilities in Nova Scotia, Canada. METHODS: Residents capable of informed consent were recruited by LTC staff in a stratified random sample of LTC facilities. Calibrated personnel administered standard clinical and quality-of-life instruments. RESULTS: Of the 335 adults (74% female) surveyed (mean age 80.8 ± 11.6 years), only 25% reported having regular dental care. Although 76% described their oral health as good or excellent, 41% were edentulous, 41% had some mucosal abnormality, 36% reported xerostomia and 25% had perceived or self-reported untreated dental conditions. Most mandibular dentures were nonretentive (59%) and almost half were unstable (49%). Among the dentate, 51% had untreated coronal caries, 44% had untreated root caries and 67% had attachment loss of ≥ 4 mm at ≥ 1 site. Predictors of coronal decay were a debris score ≥ 2 (adjusted odds ratio [adj OR] = 2.12; p = 0.045) or a history of smoking (adj OR = 1.02 per year of smoking; p = 0.024). Predictors of root caries were participants' perceiving a need for dental treatment (adj OR = 2.56; p = 0.015) or a history of smoking (adj OR = 1.02 per year of smoking; p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: This epidemiologic study of the oral health of LTC residents revealed a high prevalence of untreated oral disease and low use of oral care services, highlighting the need for better access to oral care for this population.
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".