Canadian Dental Patients with a Single-Unit Implant-Supported Restoration in the Aesthetic Region of the Mouth: Qualitative and Quantitative Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
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
This article contains quantitative and qualitative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected from nine dental patients, with a single-implant in the maxillary anterior region of the mouth, recruited after obtaining consent documents. The quantitative data were obtained from participants’ demographics, frontal extraoral digital photographs, intraoral scans (IOS) of the maxillary arch, and self-administered questionnaires (where patients judged the overall, appearance, function, and comfort of their single-implant-supported crowns). Objective single-implant aesthetic index mean scores (Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score [PES/WES]) were obtained after two experienced calibrated clinicians analyzed the photographs and the three-dimensional models generated from the IOS. The self-administered questionnaires used a visual analogue scale (VAS) to obtain the patients’ subjective perceptions. The qualitative data were obtained from in-depth, semi-structured one-to-one interviews. The transcriptions from audio-recorded interview data were managed and coded, with the aid of a Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS). These data were stored in a public repository that can be easily downloaded from a Mendeley data repository (DOI: 10.17632/sv8t6tkvjv.1).
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