Dental status in nursing home residents with domiciliary dental care in Sweden.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the dental health status of elderly people in nursing homes receiving domiciliary dental care. DESIGN: Case note review. CLINICAL SETTING: Nursing homes in 8 Swedish counties. PARTICIPANTS: Care dependent elderly people (≥65 years). METHODS: Clinical data, including the number of remaining natural teeth, missing and decayed teeth (manifest dental caries) and root remnants, recorded by dentists according to standard practices. Medical and dental risk assessments were performed. RESULTS: Data were available for 20,664 patients. Most were women (69.1%), with a mean age of 87.1 years (SD 7.42, range 65-109). The mean age for men was 83.5 years (SD 8.12, range 65-105). Two or more medical conditions were present in most of the population. A total of 16,210 individuals had existing teeth of whom 10,974 (67.7%) had manifest caries. The mean number of teeth with caries was 5.0 (SD 5.93) corresponding to 22.8% of existing teeth. One in four individuals were considered to have a very high risk in at least one professional dental risk assessment category. CONCLUSIONS: Care dependent elderly in nursing homes have very poor oral health. There is a need to focus on the oral health-related quality of life for this group of frail elderly during their final period of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".