Oro‐facial pain and temporomandibular disorders classification systems: A critical appraisal and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a difficult undertaking to design a classification system for any disease entity, let alone for oro-facial pain (OFP) and more specifically for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A further complication of this task is that both physical and psychosocial variables must be included. To augment this process, a two-step systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, of the classification systems published during the last 20 years for OFP and TMD was performed. The first search step identified 190 potential citations which ultimately resulted in only 17 articles being included for in-depth analysis and review. The second step resulted in only 5 articles being selected for inclusion in this review. Five additional articles and four classification guidelines/criteria were also included due to expansion of the search criteria. Thus, in total, 14 documents comprising articles and guidelines/criteria (8 proposals of classification systems for OFP; 6 for TMD) were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. For each, a discussion as to their advantages, strengths and limitations was provided. Suggestions regarding the future direction for improving the classification process with the use of ontological principles rather than taxonomy are discussed. Furthermore, the potential for expanding the scope of axes included in existing classification systems, to include genetic, epigenetic and neurobiological variables, is explored. It is therefore recommended that future classification system proposals be based on combined approaches aiming to provide archetypal treatment-oriented classifications.
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 | 0.173 | 0.318 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".