MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187846975

Elderly Canadians residing in long-term care hospitals: Part II. Dental caries status.

2002· article· en· W2187846975 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot cariesMedicineDentistryOral hygieneCarious lesionPopulationCoronal planeEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dental caries has 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 document the caries status of elderly dentate residents of intermediate and extended LTC hospitals in Vancouver and surrounding communities. METHODS: A dentist examined the teeth of 369 elderly dentate hospital residents (coronal and root surfaces) for caries. The medical, dietary, oral microbial, oral hygiene and dental status of the same subjects are documented and discussed in a companion article. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety (78.6%) of the subjects had at least one carious lesion; 186 (50.4%) had coronal caries and 254 (68.8%) had root caries. On average, each subject had 3.8 carious teeth. The residents of extended LTC hospitals had significantly more carious coronal surfaces. Lactobacillus scores were correlated with the DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces), the number of carious coronal lesions, the number of carious surfaces and the plaque index, but Streptococcus mutans scores were correlated only with DMFT (decayed, missing, filled teeth). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the prevalence of dental caries among the elderly residents of LTC hospitals in this study was high, although almost half of the subjects had visited community dentists within the previous 5 years. Caries prevention strategies (specifically diet, oral hygiene and antimicrobial agents) rather than treatment alone may be needed to control caries 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations65
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207