MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Longitudinal Trends in the Use of Individualized Radiographic Examinations at Dental Schools in the United States and Canada

2006· article· en· W2305497627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mel L. Kantor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyDental radiographyQuarter (Canadian coin)DentistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207