Effectiveness of different protocols of Class II treatment: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leczenie wad klasy II jest jednym z najważniejszych zadań współczesnej ortodoncji, ale zdania na temat przewagi metody jednoetapowej nad dwuetapową są podzielone.Cel.Celem naszego badania było porównanie skuteczności leczenia w odniesieniu do zmian parametrów zębowych i szkieletowych wraz z uwzględnieniem czasu leczenia.Materiał i metody.Do badania zebrano dane od 180 pacjentów (96 K, 84 M), których w zależności od fazy wzrostu leczono metodą dwuetapową, z wykorzystaniem aparatów czynnościowych w pierwszym etapie i aparatów stałych AbstractClass II treatment is one of the most important tasks of modern orthodontics, but opinions are di-vided on the advantage of the 1-stage over the 2-stage method.Aim.The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of the treatment with regard to changes in dental and skeletal parameters and taking into account the duration of treatment.Material and methods.The data from 180 patients (96F, 84M) were collected in the study.Depending on the growth phase, the patients were treated with the 2-stage method, with the use of functional appliances in stage 1 and
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".