Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders— <scp>INfORM</scp> recommendations: Comprehensive and short‐form adaptations for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) are used worldwide in adults. Until now, no adaptation for use in children has been proposed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of Axis I and Axis II of the DC/TMD for adults that are appropriate for use with children in clinical and research settings. METHODS: Global Delphi studies with experts in TMDs and in pain psychology identified ways of adapting the DC/TMD for children. RESULTS: The proposed adaptation is suitable for children aged 6-9 years. Proposed changes in Axis I include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for children, (ii) adding a general health questionnaire for children and one for their parents, (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire and (iv) modifying the clinical examination protocol. Proposed changes in Axis II include (i) for the Graded Chronic Pain Scale, to be developmentally appropriate for children, (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessments that have been validated in children and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophising and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in children. CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II, for children aged 6-9 years, is appropriate for use in clinical and research settings. This adapted the first version for children includes changes in Axis I and Axis II changes requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".