The assessment of parents’ knowledge about toothbrushing of preschool children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To assess the knowledge of the preschool children’ parents about their toothbrushing. Material and method. During the first visit to the clinic, a questionnaire about the mother’ education level and children’ dental hygiene was given to the parents of 276 children aged 1 to 5 years, with caries in primary dentition. Results. a) 194 parents (70.29%) filled the questionnaire; b) in 15.46% of children (aged between 1 year 3 months and 3 years 3 months) the toothbrushing has not been yet introduced; most of the mothers with ≤10 classes started the toothbrushing after the age of 2 and mothers with middle and higher education level – in most cases after the age of 1; c) in 41.50% of children the toothbrushing was performed 1 time/day or less; d) 29.37% of children brushed their teeth without a parental surveillance and 48.75% with supervision. Conclusions. 1) Only in 5% of children toothbrushing was started before the age of 1; 2) About 30% of children had no parental supervision during their toothbrushing; 3) In a large percentage of mothers, especially those with lower education level, the knowledge about oral health care of preschool children are scarce.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".