Clinical Orofacial Examination in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: International Consensus-based Recommendations for Monitoring Patients in Clinical Practice and Research Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop international consensus-based recommendations for the orofacial examination of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), for use in clinical practice and research. METHODS: Using a sequential phased approach, a multidisciplinary task force developed and evaluated a set of recommendations for the orofacial examination of patients with JIA. Phase 1: A Delphi survey was conducted among 40 expert physicians and dentists with the aim of identifying and ranking the importance of items for inclusion. Phase 2: The task force developed consensus about the domains and items to be included in the recommendations. Phase 3: A systematic literature review was performed to assess the evidence supporting the consensus-based recommendations. Phase 4: An independent group of orofacial and JIA experts were invited to assess the content validity of the task force's recommendations. RESULTS: Five recommendations were developed to assess the following 5 domains: medical history, orofacial symptoms, muscle and temporomandibular joint function, orofacial function, and dentofacial growth. After application of data search criteria, 56 articles were included in the systematic review. The level of evidence for the 5 recommendations was derived primarily from descriptive studies, such as cross-sectional and case-control studies. CONCLUSION: Five recommendations are proposed for the orofacial examination of patients with JIA to improve the clinical practice and aid standardized data collection for future studies. The task force has formulated a future research program based on the proposed recommendations.
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 | 0.291 | 0.403 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".