Dental health of cleft patients attending the 18-month-old clinic at a specialised centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orofacial clefts are the most common craniofacial anomaly and children with a cleft are at increased risk of dental caries and anomalies, the most common being hypodontia. This evaluation aimed to establish whether implemented changes after the first cycle led to improved oral health prevention in children attending the 18-month-year-old cleft dental appointment. A total of 44 records were analysed retrospectively over a 9-month period for the second cycle. The initial findings were presented locally and nationally to cleft teams, and an article discussing the dental health of 18-month-old cleft patients was published in the British Dental Journal. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic limiting dental care access, registration with a local dentist increased by 8% in the second cycle. There was a 24% increase in the number of patients having twice-daily toothbrushing performed and an 11% increase in the number of cleft patients who have stopped bottle-feeding by 18 months. The implemented changes following the initial cycle looking at dental health had a positive impact on the percentage of patients who brush twice daily, stopped bottle-feeding and registered with a local dentist.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".