MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment Outcome in Endodontics: The Toronto Study. Phase 1: Initial Treatment

2003· article· en· W4237787297 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endodontics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeriodontitisEndodonticsDentistryPeriapical periodontitisUnivariate analysisEndodontic therapyOrthodonticsMultivariate analysisInternal medicineRoot canal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the 4- to 6-yr outcome of initial endodontic treatment during Phase 1 of the “Toronto Study” project. A total of 450 teeth were treated, alternating the “Schilder” technique and step-back with lateral condensation, and examined clinically and radiographically by an independent examiner. Apical periodontitis was recorded as absent (periapical index < 3) or present (periapical index ≥ 3) and outcome dichotomized as “healed” (no apical periodontitis, no signs or symptoms) or “disease.” Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed (p = 0.05) on 120 examined teeth. The “healed” rate (81% overall) was significantly higher for teeth treated without apical periodontitis (92%) than with apical periodontitis (74%). Several other factors were associated with healing rate differential of 10% or higher, but no statistical significance. This study confirmed apical periodontitis as the main prognostic factor in initial endodontic treatment. Continuation of the project will allow assessment of other prognostic factors with better power. This study assessed the 4- to 6-yr outcome of initial endodontic treatment during Phase 1 of the “Toronto Study” project. A total of 450 teeth were treated, alternating the “Schilder” technique and step-back with lateral condensation, and examined clinically and radiographically by an independent examiner. Apical periodontitis was recorded as absent (periapical index < 3) or present (periapical index ≥ 3) and outcome dichotomized as “healed” (no apical periodontitis, no signs or symptoms) or “disease.” Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed (p = 0.05) on 120 examined teeth. The “healed” rate (81% overall) was significantly higher for teeth treated without apical periodontitis (92%) than with apical periodontitis (74%). Several other factors were associated with healing rate differential of 10% or higher, but no statistical significance. This study confirmed apical periodontitis as the main prognostic factor in initial endodontic treatment. Continuation of the project will allow assessment of other prognostic factors with better power.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it