Clinical outcomes for Early Childhood Caries (ECC): the influence of health locus of control.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the relationship between clinical outcomes for children treated for ECC and health locus of control. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 79 children (42 males, 37 females) treated for ECC; age range was 2.3-7.3 years (mean 4.2 years) at the time of entry into the study. A questionnaire [developed by DeVellis et al., 1993] was administered to each child's parent(s) on the day of dental surgery. This questionnaire examined the expectation that healthcare outcomes in children are influenced by one of the following loci of control: Professional, Parent, Child, Media, Fate and Divine. The cohort was evaluated for new caries lesions at 6 months post dental surgery. Relapse was defined as the presence of new smooth surface caries lesions. STATISTICS: For each locus, the scores for the Relapse versus Non-relapse groups (returning patients) and the scores for the returning versus non-returning patients were compared using t-tests. RESULTS: 57 children (72%) returned for follow-up and 21 of these 57 (37%) relapsed. No statistically significant difference for Relapse versus Non-relapse groups was indicated with respect to the scores for any locus parameter (p values ranged from 0.35 to 0.95). Returning parents (N=57) versus non- returning parents (N=22) exhibited statistically significant differences with respect to the Parent, Divine and Fate loci. Returning parents exhibited higher scores on the Parent locus (p=0.0392) and lower scores on the Fate (p=0.0024) and Divine (p=0.0031) loci. CONCLUSION: 1). The relapse rate (37%) was high and rapid for children treated for ECC; 2). no meaningful difference existed between the Relapse versus Non-relapse groups with respect to each health locus of control parameter; 3). parents who returned for follow-up care appeared to have an internal health locus of control while those who did not return had an external locus.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".