Clinician/Patient-Reported Outcomes and Their Association After Root Canal Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The relationship between clinician-reported outcome measures (CROM) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) after root canal treatment is poorly understood. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) is a crucial PROM. Determination of the minimal important difference (MID) is critical for determining patients' perspective of treatment effectiveness, but the MID required to perceive any meaningful change in the OHRQOL after root canal treatment remains unclear. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the relationship between the clinical outcome and OHRQOL after root canal treatment and to determine the corresponding MID values. METHODS: Patients (N = 64) requiring primary nonsurgical root canal treatment were recruited. Clinical and radiographic (cone-beam computed tomography) assessment of treatment outcomes was performed at the 12-month follow-up. OHRQOL and pain were evaluated preoperatively and at the 12-month follow-up using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 and visual analog scale, respectively. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. MID was assessed using distribution- and anchor-based approaches. RESULTS: The final analysis included 47 patients. The clinical outcome was favorable for 92.6% of teeth. OHRQOL and pain showed significant improvement after treatment (P < .001). No significant association was found between clinical outcome and OHRQOL (P > .05). The mean Oral Health Impact Profile-14 score change (ie, 13.6) was greater than the range of MID values determined. CONCLUSIONS: Root canal treatment significantly improves OHRQOL. Improvement in the OHRQOL score was greater than the MID values determined, implying a clinically significant change. However, PROM (OHRQOL) does not appear to be correlated with CROM.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".