Frequency of congenitally missing third molars in orthodontic patients.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the frequency of congenitally missing third molars in Orthodontic patients. Study Design: Retrospective Study. Setting: Department of Orthodontics at Abbottabad International Dental College, Abbottabad. Period: February 2021 to November 2021. Material & Methods: Retrospective data was collected from the files in the departmental archives. Files from the past seven years were studied for data collection. Congenitally missing teeth were identified from the patient’s history and the Orthopantomogram present within each file. The collected data was analyzed via SPSS software Version 21. Results: Chi-square test was applied to find the frequency of missing teeth. Congenital absence of third molars was highly significant among maxilla and mandible (p-value <0.001). No significant difference was found among the genders. Conclusion: Congenitally missing third molars are more prevalent in the maxilla than the mandible.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it