Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between self-perceived change in oral health status and the provision of dental treatment in an older adult population. DESIGN: A longitudinal study with data collection at baseline and after three years. Information on change in oral health was obtained by interviews with study subjects and information on dental treatment over three years was obtained from subjects' dentists. SUBJECTS: Nine hundred and seven subjects took part at baseline and 611 at follow-up. Of the latter, 495 reported at least one dental visit during the three-year observation period and dental treatment information was available for 408. Outcome measures Global transition judgements and change scores derived from four oral health indexes were used to assess change in oral health status. RESULTS: Over the three-year period, one-tenth of subjects reported that their oral health had improved and one-fifth that it had deteriorated. Those who improved made significantly more dental visits and received significantly more dental services that those who deteriorated or did not change (P<0.0001). They also received a broader range of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic services. The association between change and dental service provision remained after controlling for other potential determinants of oral health. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that improvements in the oral health of older adults depend upon access to comprehensive dental treatments which can address fully their clinical and self-perceived needs.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".