Caries reporting in studies that used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how caries was reported in studies that employed the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). METHODS: A systematic database search up to August 2017 was carried out using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane library and ISI Web of Science electronic databases. Only studies that used the ICDAS for dental caries examinations were included. Studies were excluded if the examination was done only for the validation or the calibration of the ICDAS and/or if the examination was not done for the whole dentition. Measures used to report caries were considered. RESULTS: A total of 126 papers met the inclusion criteria. Forty-four different synthesis measures were used to report caries. Most of the studies used a combination of multiple measures to report patient's caries level. These reporting measures cluster into four main groups: the number of individual ICDAS scores (ie, total counts of every score); the number of decayed surfaces/teeth (ie, total counts of combined caries scores for surfaces or teeth); measures of caries experience (ie, total counts of combined caries scores, filled and/or missing surfaces or teeth); and measures of central tendency and dispersion. The number of decayed surfaces and individual ICDAS scores were the most commonly used measures. Three studies used mean ICDAS score (ie, total ICDAS scores divided by the number of teeth), two used mean ICDAS score of carious teeth (ie, total ICDAS scores divided by the number of carious teeth) and two used the maximum ICDAS score (ie, highest ICDAS score recorded). The total ICDAS score was used only once. Many studies synthesized from the ICDAS the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth/surfaces (dmft/DMFT, dmfs/DMFS) as a measure of caries experience. CONCLUSIONS: There are variations among studies in the utilization of the system to summarize caries. Most studies presented caries data using the categorical characteristics of the ICDAS.
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 | 0.043 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".