MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035061726 · doi:10.1111/jop.13068

Interprofessional Collaboration in Dentistry: Role of physiotherapists to improve care and outcomes for chronic pain conditions and sleep disorders

2020· article· en· W3035061726 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Herrero Babiloni, J. Lam, Fernando G. Exposto, Gabrielle Beetz, Catherine Provost, Dany H. Gagnon, Gilles Lavigne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Pathology and Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionOrofacial painPhysical therapyChronic painObstructive sleep apneaHeadachesSleep (system call)Flexibility (engineering)Intervention (counseling)Manual therapyMultidisciplinary approachAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiotherapists can manage chronic pain patients by using technical interventions such as mobility, strengthening, manual therapy, or flexibility in a specific and functional manner, being a key component of a multidisciplinary team. Dentists are involved in the management of different chronic pain conditions such as temporomandibular disorders and sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea. However, they are frequently unaware of the benefits of collaborating with physical therapists. In this review, the collaboration of physical therapists and dentists will be explored when managing orofacial pain, headaches, and sleep disorders. The physical therapist is important in the management of these disorders and also in the screening of risk factors.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral Pathology and MedicineSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207