Oral health care and living environment for older people: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will map the literature on the extent of knowledge on living environment oral health care (LIVEOR) by examining its different terminologies, its description, the stakeholders involved, the implementation characteristics, and the outcomes reported by the authors. INTRODUCTION: Older people want to receive oral health care in their current living environment. Although several authors have explored some aspects of LIVEOR for older people, there are still inconsistent findings regarding the extent of this model of care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies, as well as any type of knowledge synthesis on LIVEOR involving people aged 60 years and over. The search will not be limited by language, time frame, geographic location, or publication date. METHODS: We will use the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search will include MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A hand-search of the references of the included studies, and a gray literature search will also be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts of selected studies, and perform data extraction. Findings are expected to explore what is known of LIVEOR targeting older people and to identify any knowledge gaps for future studies. We will disseminate our findings mostly through peer-reviewed publications. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e7fm2.
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 | 0.131 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.032 |
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".