Treatment Outcome in Endodontics: The Toronto Study. Phase 1: Initial Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 > or = 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".