MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034845743 · doi:10.4103/sjos.sjoralsci_12_20

Pattern of dental treatment of children under outpatient general anesthesia in children

2020· article· en· W3034845743 on OpenAlexaff
Sharat Chandra Pani, Reem Ali Alkaoud, Ghaida AlMoqbel, Azzam AlMeshrafi, Shahad Binateeq, Saleh Sonbol

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Oral Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyOutpatient clinicMedical recordObservational studyDentistryDental clinicPediatricsPermanent teethDental careLocal anesthesiaDental treatmentsAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: This study aimed to assess the pattern of cases and types of dental procedures performed in an outpatient general anesthesia (GA) operatory. Methodology: A retrospective observational study design was used. The sample comprised of children aged between 2 and 14 years of age (285 males and 267 females) who received dental treatment under GA from April 2013 to March 2019 and whose parents consented to review of dental and medical records. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of patient on admission, presence or absence of complications from the anesthesia, and type of dental procedures carried out in primary and permanent teeth were recorded and subjected to statistical analyses. Results: Nearly 90% of the cases treated were ASA I ( n = 498), with only four cases that were classified as being above ASA III. The mean number of teeth treated per child was 10.6 (standard deviation ± 3.89) teeth. There was a gradual reduction in mean number of teeth treated from 2013 to 2018. There were no cases of serious complications of GA or delayed postoperative recovery reported over the 6-year period. Conclusions: Outpatient surgery is an effective means of providing dental care under GA, even for children with mild systemic disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of Oral SciencesSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207