Elderly Canadians residing in long-term care hospitals: Part I. Medical and dental status.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral diseases and conditions have been identified as a significant problem for elderly residents of long-term care (LTC) hospitals in developed countries, yet little recent information is available for the Canadian population. OBJECTIVE: To describe the medical, dietary, oral microbial, oral hygiene and dental status of elderly Canadians living in LTC hospitals in Vancouver and surrounding communities. METHODS: A sample of 369 elderly dentate hospital residents (mean age 83.9 years, 281 women [76.2%]) were examined, and their medical status and medications, oral status and type of hospital were documented. Oral hygiene practices and diet (specifically intake of refined carbohydrates) were evaluated. Subjects with xerostomia and subjects taking medications with hyposalivary side effects were identified, and salivary Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus were cultured. RESULTS: The mean plaque index was 1.3; men had a higher plaque index than women and residents of extended care hospitals had a higher plaque index than those in intermediate care hospitals. The mean bacterial score per millilitre of saliva was 9.7 105 colony-forming units (CFU) for Streptococcus mutans and 1.6 105 CFU for Lactobacillus. On average, each subject had 6.3 sound teeth, and 9.3 teeth had been restored. CONCLUSIONS: Although almost half of the subjects had visited a dental office in their community within the past 5 years, the elderly hospital residents in this study had few remaining teeth and suffered from poor oral hygiene. Prevention strategies (such as diet, oral hygiene and antimicrobial agents) rather than dental interventions (such as restorations and extractions) alone may be needed to control oral diseases in this susceptible 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".