Integrating Oral Health in Speech-Language Pathology Practice: A Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to propose and outline the role that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have in oral health care. Additional goals include describing oral health, describing the relationships between oral health and overall health, and providing information about oral health assessment and management practices, as well as resources appropriate for use by SLPs. Conclusions: Oral health is critical to overall health and a marker of health equity. An alarming number of people in the United States, such as those living on a low income, experience significant barriers to accessing oral health care. SLPs work to prevent, assess, diagnose, and treat communication and swallowing disorders for clients across the lifespan. Part of this scope of practice includes the evaluation and management of oral health to varying degrees. Integrating basic oral health care into speech-language pathology practice has the potential to improve oral health equity for several priority populations. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19606288
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".