Evolution of caries and fluorosis in schoolchildren of the Canary Islands (Spain): 1991, 1998, 2006.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work is to assess the evolution of caries and fluorosis prevalence and indices at 7 and 12 years of age in the Canary Islands through three cross epidemiological studies conducted in 1991, 1998 and 2006. The three studies followed a similar methodology, using the WHO diagnosis criteria and indications, except for the assessment of fluorosis, which was measured with the "Thylstrup and Fejerskov" index. The examining dentists were trained and calibrated in an area with high endemic fluorosis. The three studies took a sample of 1000 students for each age group. At 7 years of age, the decayed, and filled teeth (dft) varied from 1.42 in 1991 to 1.14 in 1998 and 1.37 in 2006. At 12 years of age, the Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) went from 1.86 to 1.21 and 1.51 in the three studies respectively and the significant caries index (SiC) went from 4.28 to 3.15 and 3.72. At this age, the Filled Rate rose from 24.05% in 1991 to 30.43% in 1998 and to 37.20% in 2006. In relation to fluorosis, at 12 years of age the percentage of healthy or fluorosis-free schoolchildren in the Canary Islands between the first and the second studies went down from 73% to 61.3% and went up to 78.5% in 2006, with a noticeable fall in the prevalence of children with severe and moderate fluorosis. Despite the fluctuations of caries shown in the three studies, at 12 years of age the Canary Islands have remained in the low level of caries of the WHO classification from 1991 up to now. The evolution in the prevalence of dental fluorosis shows the effect of the measures taken, 10 years after they were started.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".