A peer-led dental education program for modifying oral self-care in Mexican children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare peer-led dental education (PLDE) versus conventional dental instruction (CDI) in modifying children's oral self-care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The intervention group (two schools) received PLDE and the control group (two schools) received CDI. The quality of oral self-care practice (OSC-P) and oral self-care skills (OSC-S) were indicated by dental plaque levels (%) and compared before and after dental education. RESULTS: There were no baseline OSC-P differences between the control (55.8 ± 12.8%) and intervention (55.5 ± 14.6%) groups or OSC-S differences between the intervention (38.5 ± 13.2%) and control (38.1 ± 12.5%) groups. At the three-month follow-up we observed OSC-P deterioration in the control group (63.2 ± 15.0%) and OSC-P improvement in the intervention group (52.2 ± 15.6%). The OSC-P/OSC-S regression models found these predictors: baseline oral self-care, group affiliation, and mother's education (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis was confirmed and significant predictors were baseline oral self-care levels, group affiliation, and mother's education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".