Knowledge and attitudes of Jordanian and Polish dental interns towards cone beam CT imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knowledge about cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) among dental personnel is paramount topic and being investigated in many countries all over the world.Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess and compare knowledge and attitudes of Jordanian and Polish dental interns towards CBCT.Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was performed using a questionnaire composed of 17 questions related to CBCT.The questionnaire was distributed to 89 Jordanian and 103 Polish dental interns, and c 2 test was applied for data analysis.Results: The majority of dental interns (range, 55.2-94.3%)correctly answered questions related to CBCT knowledge, and showed positive attitudes towards CBCT.Polish dental interns had higher scores in most of the questions related to CBCT basic knowledge, and there was a statistically significant difference in various responses (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Both Jordanian and Polish dental interns have a good level of knowledge and positive attitudes towards CBCT.To enhance knowledge and attitudes among dental interns, dental faculties should provide more courses related to CBCT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".