MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182171214

Dental arch space changes following premature loss of primary first molars: a systematic review.

2008· review· en· W2182171214 on OpenAlexaff
William Tunison, Carlos Flores‐Mir, H E elBadrawy, Usama Nassar, Tarek El‐Bialy

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMolarMaxillaDentistryDental archIncisorMandible (arthropod mouthpart)OrthodonticsTooth lossOral health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to consider the available evidence regarding premature loss of primary molars and the implications for treatment planning. METHODS: Electronic database searches were conducted--including published information available until July 2007--for available evidence. A methodological quality assessment was also applied. RESULTS: Although a significant number of published articles had dealt with premature primary molar loss, only 3 studies (including a total combined sample of 80 children) had the minimal methodological quality to be considered for this systematic review. CONCLUSION: A reported immediate space loss of 1.5 mm per arch side in the mandible and 1 mm in the maxilla--when normal growth changes were considered--was found. The magnitude, however, is not likely to be of clinical significance in most cases. Nevertheless, in cases with incisor and/or lip protrusion or a severe predisposition to arch length deficiency prior to any tooth loss, this amount of loss could have treatment implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207