Dental caries in Quebec adults aged 35 to 44 years.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of dental caries in Quebec adults aged 35 to 44. METHODS: A stratified sample was used. The participation rate was 77% for the questionnaire and 44.5% for the oral examination. A total of 2,110 people were examined. The World Health Organization's caries criteria were used. Examiner agreement with gold standard dentist was excellent at the end of the nine-day training session (Kappa index > 0.8). RESULTS: The level of caries experience is very high in Quebec adults aged 35 to 44. Almost half of dental surfaces (65 of 148) have been affected. These surfaces are mostly missing (39.3) or filled (23.9). However, there were 1.8 decayed surfaces in need of treatment per adult, and more than half the people (55.5%) had no untreated decayed surfaces. Almost three-quarters of decayed surfaces were present in only 14% of the people; lower family income and lower education are risk factors. CONCLUSION: Comparison between Quebec and industrialized countries (United States, England and the Netherlands) shows that in adults 35 to 44, the mean number of decayed teeth is low (between 1.0 and 2.2) and the mean number of filled teeth is relatively similar (between 9.6 and 11.1); however, Quebec has a higher percentage than the United States of edentulous people. As well, in dentate adults, there are 1.6 times more missing teeth among Quebecers than among Americans.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".