Assessment of Oral Cancer Awareness among Dental Students, Practitioners and Patients in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed at assessing the level of knowledge and awareness regarding oral cancer (OC) & its associated manifestations and risk factors among dental students, dental practitioners, & dental patients at the University of Manitoba, Canada.The results of this study may aid us to recognize whether a change is required to enhance our curriculum, focus our continuous education (CE) and raise the public's dental health awareness. Materials and Methods:This study involved preparation of three different focused questionnaires relevant to each of the following categories: 1) The final year dental students at the University of Manitoba (33 students); 2) The dental practitioners working in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba (51 of 100 returned the survey); 3) The patients attending the outpatient OMS clinic at the University of Manitoba (53 patients).Results: About 55% of the students thought that they had received sufficient didactic & clinical information regarding oral cancer during their U/G study, 18% thought they had inadequate information, 24% were not sure.Only 37% of the GDP thought they had sufficient knowledge concerning the prevention & detection of oral cancer and 29% thought they had inadequate information, 33% were not sure.Fifty nine percent of the GDP had shared in the diagnosis of 1-4 Oral Cancer lesions in the last 5 years.Ninety-two percent were in favor of having more CE on oral cancer topics.Ninety-six percent of the surveyed patients knew that tobacco use might cause oral cancer; surprisingly, only 43% knew that Alcohol is a risk factor for oral cancer.Only 19% of the patients reported that they had enough information about oral cancer and that the dentist was the main source of information.Conclusion: This study indicated that a significant percentage of the surveyed dental students and dental practitioners might need more didactic/ clinical information & CE regarding oral cancer.Innovative programs is recommended for raising oral cancer awareness among the public and the dental patients particularly among those who are at risk of oral cancer.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".