MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000450354 · doi:10.2174/1874210601913010449

Vertical Tooth Root Fracture Detection through Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An Umbrella Review Protocol Testing Four Hypotheses

2019· article· en· W3000450354 on OpenAlexaff
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, David MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Dentistry Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiographyCone beam computed tomographyMedicineDentistryOrthodonticsProtocol (science)Conventional radiographyComputed tomographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting vertical root fractures represents an immense challenge for oral health professionals. One of the main tools used to detect this type of biological complication is the periapical radiograph. However, conventional radiography consists of two-dimensional imaging that is limited by the superimposition of bony structures that complicate the detection of root fractures. The alternative, a Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan, cannot be prescribed in every case since radiation should be kept to a minimum as stipulated by the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle. Therefore, to justify the use of a CBCT scan to detect a vertical tooth root fracture, the clinician must prove that it has significant benefits over traditional imaging. Since few systematic reviews have compared CBCT technology to traditional radiography for the diagnosis of vertical root fractures, it is of utmost importance in clinical practice, especially in endodontology and clinical dental medicine, where the available reviews are examined to generate a clinical recommendation. The four hypotheses of this protocol are that(1)CBCT is superior to traditional radiography for detecting vertical root fractures of vital teeth;(2)CBCT is superior to traditional radiography for detecting longitudinal root fractures of vital teeth with radiopaque restorations;(3)CBCT is superior to traditional radiography for detecting vertical root fractures of root-filled teeth without a radiopaque post that may cause artifacts; and(4)CBCT is superior to traditional radiography for detecting vertical root fractures of root-filled teeth with a radiopaque post regardless of its longitude. To test these hypotheses, all the current secondary resources related to the aim of this meta-review are evaluated. If there is sufficient evidence to support clinical decisions, then the appropriate recommendations will be formulated. PROSPERO ID: CRD42018067792

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.008

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Dentistry JournalSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207