Reference values for pulp oxygen saturation as a diagnostic tool in endodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: ) using pulse oximetry in permanent maxillary anterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: statistic, and all analyses were performed using R software. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: values were 84.94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.85%-85.04%) for the central incisors, 89.29% (95% CI, 89.22%-89.35%) for the lateral incisors, and 89.20% (95% CI, 89.05%-89.34%) for the canines. The studies were predominantly low-quality due to the high risk of bias associated with the index test, unclear risk regarding patient selection, and concerns about outcome assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Although most studies were low-quality, the oxygen saturation levels in normal pulp could be established (minimum saturation, 77.52%). Despite the risk of bias of the included studies, the reference values reported herein are clinically relevant for assessments of changes in pulp status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42018085598.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".