Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercially available caries-detector dyes are purported to aid the dentist in differentiation of infected dentin, yet research has established that these dyes are not specific for infected dentin. They are non-specific protein dyes that stain the organic matrix of less mineralized dentin, including normal circumpulpal dentin and sound dentin in the area of the amelo-dentinal junction. A considerable body of evidence indicates that conventional tactile and optical criteria provide satisfactory assessment of caries status during cavity preparation. There is reason for concern that subsequent use of a caries-detector dye would result in unnecessary removal of sound tooth structure. The use of caries-detector dyes has also been suggested as a diagnostic aid for occlusal caries. Although diagnosis of carious dentin beneath apparently sound enamel can be challenging, there is a lack of substantive evidence supporting the use of dyes for this purpose and false positives are a significant concern. Careful visual inspection combined with bitewing radiographic diagnosis has been shown to be the most reliable diagnostic method for the presence of infected dentin requiring operative treatment.
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 | 0.032 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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".