MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185109389 · doi:10.11480/jmds.680010

Relationship between taste sensitivity and dental caries

2021· article· en· W3185109389 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsTasteDentistryMedicineSensitivity (control systems)Food scienceChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dental caries is still one of the most common diseases to afflict mankind. It affects 34.1% of the global population. Some studies have reported that individuals with high sugar intake have higher dental caries rates. However, the physiological mechanisms underlying an individual’s craving for sweet substances were not well documented. It was also reported that taste sensitivity may be associated with the preference for or rejection of some foods. Sweet preference has been linked to bitter taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP). The PROP impregnated paper strip is proved to be a useful tool in determining the inherent sensitivity levels (super-taster, medium-taster, and non-taster) to bitter and sweet tastes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between taste sensitivity to PROP and dental caries. The results showed a significantly larger number of untreated dental caries lesions among non-tasters compared to super-tasters. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the DMFT index value among the three groups. These results suggest that taste sensitivity to PROP could be a useful screening tool to identify individuals with high dental caries risk.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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