Dog‐assisted therapy in the dental clinic: Part A—Hazards and assessment of potential risks to the health and safety of humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic may be an attractive alternative to sedation for anxious patients. Including a dental therapy dog in a clinical setting introduces new hazards and potential risks to health and safety for both humans and animal. Objectives: The study aims to describe potential hazards associated with risks to humans by having a therapy dog present in the dental clinic and to provide guidance on best practices to minimise and control risks for the patients, the dentist, and the dental clinic staff. Materials and Methods: Literature searches in Medline, http://Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for qualitative and quantitative assessments of hazards and risks associated with the use of therapy dogs in health care settings, in combination with a review of the reference list of the included studies. Identified hazards and risks were analysed with respect for the health and welfare of humans in a dental clinic setting that involves the presence of a therapy dog. Results: Potential risks to health and safety for humans in dental clinics that offer dog-assisted therapy can be categorised within four general categories of hazards: the dog as a source of zoonotic pathogens and human diseases, exposure to canine allergens, adverse animal behaviour, and dangers associated with high activity in a congested dental clinic operatory. Risks to humans are reduced by maintaining awareness amongst the dental clinic staff and the dog handler of all potential hazards in the dental clinic, and on how to reduce these hazards as well as adverse events that may scare the dental therapy dog. Conclusions: Risks to the health and safety of humans in the presence of therapy dog in the clinics are present but are low if the dental clinical staff and dog handlers comply with best practices.
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".