P.0623 The clinical relevance of the pharmacokinetics of psilocybin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicotine dependence is a reversible risk factor of numerous oral cavity diseases. Dentist should be non-smoking and have knowledge on diagnosis and treatment of nicotine addiction.The aim of this survey is the assessment of prevalence of nicotine dependence among Polish dentists, factors associated with this addiction and knowledge on minimal anti-nicotine intervention acquired during pre- and post-graduate training.From October 2013 to March 2014 during 5 dental conferences dental practitioners (881 persons) were given anonymous proprietary questionnaires on nicotine use. 544 questionnaires were qualified for analysis, response rate 61.7%.Group of active nicotine users consisted of 72 persons (13.2% of respondents). The average duration of smoking was 20 years and number of cigarettes smoked daily was 15. Median level of nicotine dependence score 5 and predominance of scores in the range of 4-6 on Fagerström test indicate that most frequent was moderate dependence. As many as 44.4% of dentists in this group had no attempts to quit the addiction. Non-smokers prevailed among women, pedodontists and younger practitioners. Active nicotine users prevailed in dentists above 44 years of age, male, dental surgeons and maxillofacial surgeons. Up to 397 (73%) respondents declared they were never acquainted with the basis for minimal anti-nicotine intervention.The prevalence of nicotine addiction among Polish dentists is lower by 10% compared to the general population, although in relation to current foreign studies its the average level. Main factors associated with active nicotine use in this occupational group include male gender, increasing age and surgical dental specialties. It should be intended to reduce number of nicotine users among Polish dentists by 5%. For this purpose professional anti-nicotine knowledge should be disseminated more.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".