OQA : A question-answering dataset on orthodontic literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The near-exponential increase in the number of publications in orthodontics poses a challenge for efficient literature appraisal and evidence-based practice. Language models (LM) have the potential, through their question-answering fine-tuning, to assist clinicians and researchers in critical appraisal of scientific information and thus to improve decision-making. Methods This paper introduces OrthodonticQA (OQA), the first question-answering dataset in the field of dentistry which is made publicly available under a permissive license. A framework is proposed which includes utilization of PICO information and templates for question formulation, demonstrating their broader applicability across various specialties within dentistry and healthcare. A selection of transformer LMs were trained on OQA to set performance baselines. Results The best model achieved a mean F1 score of 77.61 (SD 0.26) and a score of 100/114 (87.72%) on human evaluation. Furthermore, when exploring performance according to grouped subtopics within the field of orthodontics, it was found that for all LMs the performance can vary considerably across topics. Conclusion Our findings highlight the importance of subtopic evaluation and superior performance of paired domain specific model and tokenizer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".