MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4318924152 · doi:10.1111/cid.13189

Masseter muscle cross‐sectional area and late implant failure: A case–control study

2023· article· en· W4318924152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Makiko Takashima, Yoshiaki Arai, Nanaka Matsuzaki, Yuta Yamazaki, Hideyoshi Nishiyama, Kaname Nohno

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplantMedicineImplant failureMasseter muscleDentistryDental implantProportional hazards modelIncidence (geometry)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Occlusal overload is considered to be one of the causes of late implant failure. However, it is unclear whether the magnitude of the patient's occlusal force is a risk factor for late implant failure. PURPOSE: This case-control study aimed to clarify the association between the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the masseter muscle and late implant failure. METHODS: This case-control study was limited to implant-supported fixed prostheses. We compared cases with at least one late implant failure (n = 25 patients) to controls (n = 82 patients) without implant failure. Patients were matched by age, sex, year of surgery, jaw and tooth type, and bone graft. Log-rank and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to identify possible risk factors for late implant failure. RESULTS: (hazard ratio: 4.43; 95% CI: 1.82-10.79; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Higher masseter muscle CSA increases the risk of late implant failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→