Neighborhood Contexts and Oral Health Outcomes in a Pediatric Population: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to explore the impacts of neighborhood-level socioeconomic contexts on the therapeutic and preventative dental quality outcome of children under 16 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anonymized billing data of 842 patients reporting to a university children's dental over three years (March 2017-2020) met the inclusion criteria. Their access to care (OEV-CH-A), topical fluoride application (TFL-CH-A) and dental treatment burden (TRT-CH-A) were determined by dental quality alliance (DQA) criteria. The three oral health variables were aggregated at the neighborhood level and analyzed with Canadian census data. Their partial postal code (FSA) was chosen as a neighborhood spatial unit and maps were created to visualize neighborhood-level differences. RESULTS: = 0.001) and the cost of dental care. While there was no significant association between neighborhood-level sociodemographic variables and OEV-CH-A, TRT-CH-A showed a significant negative association at the neighborhood level with median household income and significant positive association with percentage of non-official first language (English or French) speakers. CONCLUSION: Initial analysis suggests differences exist in dental outcomes according to neighborhood-level sociodemographic variables, even when access to dental care is similar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".