Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective :The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of an oral sensory stimulation home program on tooth-brushing of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder(ASD).Methods :A single-subject ABA research design was employed for three children with ASD. The procedure consisted of a total of 15 sessions, including 4 during baseline period(A1), 8 during the intervention period (B), and 3 during the baseline regression period(A2). For the independent variable oral sensory stimulation home program was provided for children 2 or 3 times a day during the intervention period. For the dependent variables on tooth-brushing performance were rejection behavior and allocated time. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and oral sensory sensitivity in Sensory profile were measured before and the intervention, as well as after the baseline regression period. The result were presented using visual graph and bar graphs.Results :All children decrease rejection behaviors and increased allocated time on tooth-brushing. The parents reported increased performance and satisfaction on COPM for the tooth-brushing of their children. The oral sensory sensitivity decrease for all children in intervention period and the improvement in oral activity performance can be maintained after the intervention.Conclusion : This study result supports evidence that the oral sensory home program is beneficial in improving tooth-brushing performance in children with ASD with oral defensiveness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".