Oral Health Status and Treatment Needs of the Institutionalized Chronic Psychiatric Patients in two Ontario Psychiatric Care Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral Health Status and Treatment Needs of the Institutionalized Chronic Psychiatric Patients in two Ontario Psychiatric Care Centres Neyaz Farrahi-Avval Master of Science Graduate Department of Dentistry University of Toronto 2008 Abstract Purpose: To examine the oral health status of psychiatric in-patients at two long-term psychiatric health centres, with one operating a full-time dental care facility. Methods: Data were gathered from clinical examinations, a structured interview and hospital records from 120 participants. Periodontal (CPI) and dental (DMFT) indices, subjectively reported oral health status, and oral health behaviour were subsequently analyzed. Results: Referrals for dental problems were made for 62.9% of participants. Bivariate analyses revealed positive correlations between DMFT scores, age and length of stay. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated correlations between DMFT scores and infrequent dental visits, frequent snacking and age. Patients at the psychiatric hospital without a full-time dental care facility were more likely to have had higher DMFT scores, and infrequent dental visits. Conclusions: Psychiatric patients have poor oral health and significant oral health treatment needs. This study underlines the need for on-site dental care facilities at long-term psychiatric care centres.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".