An Assessment of 1067 Light Curing Units Measured Twice Between 2015 and 2021
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The physical condition of the tip and the irradiance of LCUs used in dental offices in the United States and Canada was assessed twice. METHODS: The tip irradiance and physical condition of the tip of 1067 LCUs from 544 dental clinics were assessed twice between 2015 and 2021 using the CheckMARC (BlueLight) radiometer. The irradiance values were compared by paired Student's t-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was a wide range of irradiance values (200 to 3,777 mW/cm²). At the first assessment, only 26% of the LCUs had no visible damage or debris on the LCU tip. When retested up to 36 months later, 70% of the LCUs had their tip damage or debris issues entirely or partially resolved. 2.6% of the LCUs delivered an irradiance below 500 mW/cm² on the first and 1.6% on the second assessments. For the 5 brands that had a sufficient sample size, it was concluded that the irradiance increased when the tip damage or presence of tip debris was resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Initially, most LCUs (74%) had at least one problem related to damage or debris on the LCU tip. The irradiance increased when the tip damage or debris was resolved.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it