Neighborhood-Level Inequalities in Dental Care of Adolescents and Young Adults in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether the association of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) with the cost of dental care and dental care outcomes differs between adolescents and young adults. A total of 2915 patient records were split into two groups: adolescents (15 to 17 years of age) and young adults (18 to 24 years of age). Three dental care outcomes-routine oral evaluation (OEV-CH-A), utilization of preventive services (PRV-CH-A), and dental treatment services (TRT-CH-A)-were determined according to the Dental Quality Alliance (DQA) criteria. Associations of neighborhood SES and other sociodemographic variables with dental care outcomes and the cost of dental care were assessed using binary logistic and univariate linear regression models, respectively. Young adults had significantly lower PRV-CH-A and higher TRT-CH-A scores when compared to adolescents. We observed a significant negative association between TRT-CH-A and median household income in both adolescents and young adults. Utilization of dental treatment services was positively associated with the cost of care in both age groups, whereas utilization of preventive services was inversely associated with the cost of care in young adults, but not in adolescents. Neighborhood-level income was inversely associated with increased TRT-CH-A in both young adults and adolescents. In summary, young adults showed significantly worse preventive and treatment outcomes when compared to adolescents. Moreover, individuals from neighborhoods with a lower household income showed a significantly higher cost of dental care, yet worse treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".