The Current State of Dental Sleep Medicine Practice in Academic Institutions: A Questionnaire-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the current state of dental sleep medicine practice at the United States and Canada academic institutions. Methods: An electronic survey created in Qualtrics was sent via email. The survey was sent to the 76 dental schools academic institute in the United States and Canada, 16 of which were known to have a dental sleep medicine clinic. The survey was emailed to the program directors of the sleep medicine clinics at these dental schools. For the remaining 60 schools that do not have a dental sleep medicine program, the survey was instead sent to the academic dean. The multiple choice 21-item survey was validated and received Institutional Review Board approval. Results: The response rate was 37% (28 schools), of which 86% were in the United States. Of the respondents, 45% (12 schools) had a dental sleep medicine clinic. The dental sleep medicine clinics were either an independent/ part of diagnostic services (42%) or incorporated with other departments. Almost 33% of the schools that have a sleep medicine clinic reported difficulty integrating sleep medicine into other existing programs. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported the presence of one to two board certified dental sleep medicine faculty members, whereas the remaining schools did not have any. Conclusions: This current study indicates that dental sleep medicine in academic institutions is faced with many obstacles that need to be addressed. Dental sleep medicine is a growing field that needs more attention from educational institutes. Also, the positive effect of having board-certified dental sleep medicine faculty should be noted.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".