Eyesight: a study of the staff of a dental school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/AIMS: The aim was to investigate the vision of all 90 dentally qualified staff at a dental school. MATERIALS AND METHODS: and Fisher's Exact tests were used to test for significance with an alpha level of 0.05. RESULTS: The participation rate was 95.6%. Most of the teachers (92%) considered their eyesight was satisfactory to practice dentistry. Of the 97% who had been tested at some stage, 15% had their eye examination due to sight deterioration with 22% needing correction. Almost two-thirds were myopic and a third were hyperopic. Forty-nine per cent wore spectacles only, with about a quarter of this group alternating between spectacles and contact lenses. Of those with corrected vision, 80% followed their optometrist's recall advice. Four participants reported that they were colour blind. While 4% had had laser-eye surgery, a further 27% were interested in this. Magnification was used by 72% with no significant differences between genders, age of staff member, place of qualification or registration status. Most of the staff (81%) thought that screening of dental student's eyesight should be mandatory, and regular eye examinations as a condition of dental practice was supported by 67%. DISCUSSION: The number of teachers reporting recent vision tests was encouraging; nevertheless, a worrying 8% surveyed were unsure if their eyesight was satisfactory for work. The commonest vision problem was myopia, with almost half of the teachers wearing spectacles. It is clear that visual standards for dentistry would be helpful. Magnification use was high, with many non-users indicating their intention to buy loupes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study the teachers were conscientious regarding their eye care, irrespective of their training and age. There was strong support for the mandatory testing of vision for all dentists and especially dental students.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".