A comprehensive evaluation of knowledge and perceptions regarding geriatric dentistry among Saudi Arabian dental students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and perceptions of Arabian dental students on geriatric dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a total of 100 participants belonging to Group I (25 each from third- and fourth-year students) and Group II (50 fifth-year students and interns ). All participants had completed a three-part questionnaire related to geriatric dentistry: Part I (knowledge), Part II (cognitive evaluation), and Part III (awareness and attitude of psychosocial and health problems). Comparisons were made between the groups, and the data were analyzed using SPSS software. RESULTS: The responses on the Part I were not statistically significant among the groups (P > 0.05). The knowledge mean scores comparison showed an evident significant relationship among the groups (P < 0.05). Overall the Group II participants achieved the highest scores for all the Parts (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The students belong to Group II, and the interns achieved higher scores than the Group I students. Dental students and interns in Saudi Arabia lack positive approaches in providing primary health care to geriatric individuals despite a rapidly growing geriatric population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".