Should dental schools adopt teledentistry in their curricula? Two viewpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Teledentistry is a cutting edge technology that could be used to improve access to care to underserved populations and those in remote areas. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of adopting teledentistry into the predoctoral dental curriculum. METHODS: Two teams of dentists reviewed the pros and cons of introducing teledentistry into the predoctoral dental curriculum. RESULTS: Viewpoint 1 produced evidence that teledentistry is a cutting-edge technology that can improve access to care for underserved populations in a practical, cost-effective manner. Viewpoint 2 showed evidence that teledentistry is too new to have an evidence base to support its widespread use, legal and regulatory requirements have not been established and there is no precedent for third party payers to reimburse for this service. CONCLUSION: The authors feel that a national teledentistry policy should be developed starting at the state level with stakeholders from the dental profession, dental education, government, patient advocates, and third party payers working together to determine the best way forward.
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 | 0.046 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".