Relationship between taste sensitivity and dental caries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".