Oral Health among Adult Residents in Vilnius, Lithuania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) oral conditions may be determined by social, biological, behavioral, and psychosocial factors. The study assessed oral health status and its determinants associated with oral health conditions among adult residents in Vilnius, Lithuania. A total of 453 of 35–74-year-olds participated (response rate 63%). A self-reported questionnaire was administered. Dental caries experience (D3MFS score), periodontal probing depth (PPD), andnumber of missing teeth were assessed clinically. Data were analyzed using χ2 test, independent samples t-test, and multivariable linear regression. The mean (sd) of D3MFS scores was 67.3 (33.5), the mean (sd) number of teeth with PPD 4+ mm was 5.9 (5.3), prevalence of periodontitis was 33%, the mean (sd) number of missing teeth was 6.9 (6.8), and prevalence of total edentulism was 3.8%. Medication use was associated with all oral health conditions, while age was associated with caries experience, and missing teeth. Sugar-containing diet was associated with caries experience, and missing teeth, and smoking with caries experience and periodontal status. Systemic diseases were associated with periodontal status, while behavioral determinants, last dental visit, and use of fluoridated toothpaste were associated with missing teeth. Oral health status among adult Vilnius residents was poor. Oral conditions were associated with both biological and behavioral determinants. Oral health promotion should focus on modifying behavioral determinants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".