MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947514294 · doi:10.29309/tpmj/2019.26.06.3574

Oral hygiene awareness in orthodontic patients; A cross sectional survey

2019· article· en· W2947514294 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Khalid, Syeda Qurat-Ul-Ain Arif, Sobia Ashraf

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Professional Medical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOral hygieneDentistryGingivitisCross-sectional studyBone decalcification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim and Objectives: To evaluate the current status of oral hygiene awareness in patients undergoing active orthodontic treatment and to educate them how they can improve and maintain their oral health throughout orthodontic treatment to minimize the risk of dental caries, plaque deposition, gingivitis and localized enamel decalcification. Study Design: Prospective survey. Setting: Orthodontic Department, Punjab Dental Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. Period: 06 months 1st August 2018 to 31st January 2019. Methods and Materials: A structured questionnaire was distributed to 100 patients undergoing active orthodontic treatment at orthodontic department of Punjab Dental Hospital Lahore, Pakistan in an effort to assess the level of awareness and practical measures taken by patients to maintain and improve their oral health during orthodontic treatment. Conclusion: This survey revealed that most of the patients are aware and practising oral hygiene measures during their orthodontic treatment and dentist should repeat all these instruction on every visit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Professional Medical JournalSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207