Development of a Checklist to Prevent Reconstructive Errors Made By Undergraduate Dental Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To design a checklist in order to reduce the frequency of reconstructive preventable errors (PE) performed by undergraduate dental students at McGill University. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The most common PE occurring at a university dental clinic were identified by three reviewers analyzing the refunded cases, and used to create a preliminary checklist. This checklist was then validated by a panel of dental educators to produce a finalized 20-item checklist. The 20-question checklist was then submitted to students in a cross-sectional survey-based study to evaluate its relevance to undergraduate clinical education needs. RESULTS: As many as 81% of students reported to have forgotten at least one item of the checklist during care of their last patient, and the most forgotten checklist items corresponded to the pretreatment stage. The students also reported that 17 of the 20 items in the checklist were relevant to a considerable extent or highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Common PE identified in the undergraduate clinic could be used to create a checklist of relevant items designed to reduce errors made by students and practitioners performing prosthodontic and reconstructive treatments. However, further studies are required to evaluate the implementation and efficiency of the checklist.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it