Longitudinal Trends in the Use of Individualized Radiographic Examinations at Dental Schools in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the spring of 2002, a mail survey was conducted to determine the use of individualized radiographic examinations (selective radiography) for comprehensive care patients at all sixty-four U.S. and Canadian dental schools. Results from previous surveys were used to evaluate the long-term longitudinal trends. Among sixty-two schools (97 percent response rate), selective radiography was used by 34 percent of schools for dentulous adult patients, by 100 percent for edentulous adults, and by 28 percent for children. Having a credentialed chief of service increased the likelihood that selective radiography would be used for dentulous adults (odd ratio[OR]=2.36) and for children (OR=2.33). Selective radiography for dentulous adults increased from 2 percent of schools in 1977 to 36 percent in 1997 and leveled off thereafter. Between 1987 and 2002, selective radiography for edentulous adults was used at nearly all schools (96-100 percent) and for children at about a quarter of dental schools (22-28 percent). Among the sixty-one schools for which there are complete data since 1987, the continuous use of routine radiography was most common (39 percent of schools) for dentulous adult patients, whereas the continuous use of selective radiography was uncommon (7 percent).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".