Concerns on oral health care services for adults with cognitive and intellectual disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is of interest to document data on oral health care services for adults with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. Hence, a study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number: CRD42020150759. We used PubMed, Science Direct, LILACS and SCIELO to collect data from known literature using keywords containing MESH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The risk of bias rating for the collected data was calculated using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment Scale. The AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare, Research and Quality) was used for classifying the level of evidence in the collected data. Analysis of available data shows that there is a lack of dentists with adequate skills to treat people with disabilities resulting in high cost for dental treatment. Thus, we conclude that inconvenient location of dental clinic, lack of dentists willing to treat people with disabilities and attitude of dental staff towards people with learning disabilities were considered as barriers and challenges faced for dental health service utilization in this context.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it