MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032566960 · doi:10.1111/edt.12574

International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries: General introduction

2020· review· en· W3032566960 on OpenAlexaff
Liran Levin, Peter F. Day, Lamar Hicks, Anne C. O’Connell, Ashraf Fouad, Cecilia Bourguignon, Paul V. Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Traumatology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Trauma and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatologyMedicineDental traumaMEDLINEPsychological interventionSystematic reviewPoison controlFamily medicineDentistryMedical emergencyPsychiatryOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) occur most frequently in children and young adults. Older adults also suffer TDIs but at significantly lower rates than individuals in the younger cohorts. Luxation injuries are the most common TDIs in the primary dentition, whereas crown fractures are more commonly reported for the permanent teeth. Proper diagnosis, treatment planning and follow up are very important to assure a favorable outcome. These updates of the International Association of Dental Traumatology's (IADT) Guidelines include a comprehensive review of the current dental literature using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, Scopus, and Cochrane Databases for Systematic Reviews searches from 1996 to 2019 and a search of the journal Dental Traumatology from 2000 to 2019. The goal of these guidelines is to provide information for the immediate or urgent care of TDIs. It is understood that some follow-up treatment may require secondary and tertiary interventions involving dental and medical specialists with experience in dental trauma. As with previous guidelines, the current working group included experienced investigators and clinicians from various dental specialties and general practice. The current revision represents the best evidence based on the available literature and expert opinions. In cases where the published data were not conclusive, recommendations were based on the consensus opinions of the working group. They were then reviewed and approved by the members of the IADT Board of Directors. It is understood that guidelines are to be applied using careful evaluation of the specific clinical circumstances, the clinician's judgment, and the patient's characteristics, including the probability of compliance, finances and a clear understanding of the immediate and long-term outcomes of the various treatment options vs non-treatment. The IADT does not, and cannot, guarantee favorable outcomes from adherence to the Guidelines. However, the IADT believes that their application can maximize the probability of favorable outcomes.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.016

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations469
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental TraumatologySame topicDental Trauma and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207