How does the continued use of the mask affect the craniofacial region? A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the effects between pre-pandemic mask-free living versus pandemic-related continuous mask use. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out. This study was conducted with 542 face mask users. Assessments included presence, frequency and impact of headache, temporomandibular disorders, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Continuous mask use had a large main effect on headache, temporomandibular pain, and QoL (p < .0001; d = 1.25), but this effect was nuanced by mask type. Participants who declared suffering from headache increased by 84% with cloth masks, and by 25% with FFP2 masks. Temporomandibular pain increased by 50% and by 39% when wearing surgical masks and FFP2, respectively (p < .06; d = .19). The mask type did not nuance the effect on headache impact (p > .05; d = .06). QoL decreased regardless of mask type (p < .05; d = .21), the decrease being 38% for surgical masks, and 31% for either cloth or FFP2 masks. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous mask use, regardless of type, increased existence of headache, headache impact, temporomandibular pain, and reduced QoL.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".