A longitudinal assessment of periodontal health status in 53 Labrador retrievers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and rates of progression of gingivitis and periodontitis in Labrador retrievers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three dogs, aged 1·1 to 5·9 years, had their periodontal health assessed every 6 months for up to 2 years. The extent of gingivitis and periodontitis was measured around the whole gingival margin of every tooth under general anaesthesia. RESULTS: All dogs had gingivitis at the initial assessment. The majority (64·2%) of tooth aspects had very mild gingivitis. The palatal/lingual aspect of all tooth types was most likely to show bleeding when probed: 63·0% of these aspects had mild or moderate gingivitis. Over 2 years, 56·6% of dogs developed periodontitis and dogs as young as 1·9 years were affected. There was a significant positive correlation between the proportion of teeth with periodontitis and age. In total, 124 teeth (5·7%) developed periodontitis; 88 (71·0%) of these were incisors. The palatal/lingual aspect of the incisors developed the disease first (2·8% of incisor aspects). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Periodontitis developed in regions that are difficult to see in conscious dogs implying that detection and treatment of disease requires periodic sedation or anaesthesia.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it