Knowledge, confidence and clinical reasoning of dental students for diagnosing pediatric periodontal diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the importance of diagnosing periodontal diseases in pediatric patients, the objective of this study was to examine knowledge, confidence, and clinical reasoning of third- and fourth-year dental students regarding periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning in pediatric patients. An explanatory sequential mixed-method study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the survey questions were administered online to the third-and fourth-year dental students. Surveys tested for knowledge, confidence and clinical decision-making using questions and case-studies. Answers from periodontists and the pediatric dentists were used as the gold standard. For the next phase, individual interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded followed by verbal analysis to assess their clinical reasoning for the specific diagnosis and treatment planning. While there was no overall difference in the knowledge and the confidence level between the students, they differed from the experts for some questions in confidence levels. As measured using the Script Concordance Test (SCT), no significant differences were observed between the participants in their clinical reasoning. The verbal analysis of the interview data showed that the students used three different patterns for searching through the problem space. Most of the students used the forward pattern of search and reported low confidence in diagnosing and treating pediatric periodontal diseases. Due to low self-reported confidence in diagnosing periodontal disease in pediatric patients. Providing education solutions will improve the confidence of undergraduate dental students in diagnosing and treating periodontal disease.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".