Genuine halitosis, pseudo-halitosis, and halitophobia: classification, diagnosis, and treatment.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although tongue brushing and appropriate mouthrinses are both important and basic treatment measures for halitosis, other dental treatments are sometimes required. The treatment of genuine halitosis caused by oral conditions is not complex. In addition to genuine halitosis patients, psychosomatic halitosis patients also visit dental practitioners. Although psychosomatic halitosis is out of the treatment realm of dental practitioners, patients with this condition will still seek help from a dental practitioner. They often only receive treatment for genuine halitosis without referral to a psychological specialist. If these psychosomatic halitosis patients are incorrectly managed, the psychological condition might become worse than before the visit. To avoid the mismanagement of halitosis patients, classifications of halitosis patients have been established. Genuine halitosis was subclassified as physiologic halitosis and pathologic halitosis. Pathologic halitosis was further categorized to oral pathologic halitosis and extraoral pathologic halitosis. Both pseudo-halitosis and halitophobia patients complain of the existence of halitosis, which is not offensive. Pseudo-halitosis cannot be treated by dental practitioners, and halitophobia patients must be referred to psychological specialists. Clinicians need to examine the psychological condition of halitosis patients at the initial patient visit. A questionnaire prepared for the clinic at the University of British Columbia was found to be advantageous for this purpose.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it