Periodontal diseases among Quebec adults aged 35 to 44 years.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very little information is available on periodontal diseases in Canadian adults. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of periodontal problems in Quebec adults aged 35 to 44. METHODS: A total of 2,110 randomly selected Quebec adults were examined between September 1994 and July 1995. The participation rate was 77% for the questionnaire and 44.5% for the oral examination. Measurements for gingival bleeding, calculus, epithelial attachment and periodontal pocket depths were taken for each tooth. RESULTS: More than 80% of examined persons presented with gingival bleeding on at least one tooth, and 75% presented with calculus on at least one tooth. The CPITN indicated that only 5.2% of individuals had no treatment needs, and that one out of 5 necessitated complex treatment. People with low family income, men and persons living in metropolitan areas are at higher risk of having at least one tooth with a pocket >6 mm. Dental health behaviours (regular dental visits, brushing and flossing frequency) were not significantly associated with the presence of periodontal pockets. Finally, individuals were relatively unaware of their periodontal problems. CONCLUSION: Increasing the population s awareness of periodontal diseases will be a major task for public health workers. The dental profession and the dental industry need to develop awareness campaigns to improve prevention, management and control of periodontal problems. It is especially important to target people at risk, in particular men and low-income groups. As well, dental schools and continuing education courses should focus on this problem with the aim of modifying dental practices.
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) | 0.004 | 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".