An Assessment of Direct Restorative Material Use in Posterior Teeth by American and Canadian Pediatric Dentists: III. Preferred Level of Participation in Decision-making.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess Canadian and American pediatric dentists' preferred level of participation in clinical decision-making. METHODS: A web-based survey was used to collect the opinions of all active Royal College of Dentists of Canada members and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry members on the use of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth (n equals 4,648; 19.3 percent response rate). The main survey also included a domain to elicit participants' preferred role in clinical decision-making, ranging from an active role (the dentist takes the primary role in decision-making while considering patients/caregivers opinions) to a passive role (the dentist prefers to have the patient guide the decision-making). Bivariate and multivariate analyses for the preferred role and its predictor were performed (two-tailed P<0.05). RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of participants preferred an active role. The passive role was chosen three times more by those who worked in a hospital-based setting (odds ratio [OR] equals 3.15, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] equals 1.13 to 8.79) or a university-based setting versus a combined setting (OR equals 3.61, 95 percent CI equals 1.11 to 11.77). CONCLUSION: The majority of participants preferred an active role in decision-making, a role that may not be consistent with a patient-centered practice that emphasizes patient autonomy in decision-making.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".