Validity of simplified Cariogram models versus conventional Cariogram model in caries risk assessment in young adults: Cross-sectional observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: assess the validity of different simplified models of Cariogram versus the full Cariogram model.Methods: Fifty-three young adults were recruited from Faculty of Dentistry, Ahram Canadian University in this cross-sectional observational study. All participants ages ranged from 18-29 years, medically free and signed informed consent. Caries risk assessment was done to all participants using full and simplified Cariogram. In the full version, all ten variables of Cariogram were recorded and evaluated. While regarding the simplified Cariogram, four variations were used with the omission of each factor one by one (salivary secretion rate, buffer capacity, mutans streptococci count) and then without all saliva related factors. Risk category of each participant was recorded in Cariogram. The area under receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) was computed to compare between full and simplified Cariogram models. Values of P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Area under the curve for the four simplified models of Cariogram were 0.923, 0.99, 0.97, 0.91, respectively. No statistically significant difference in area under ROC curve was found in predictive ability between full and simplified models of Cariogram with p value > 0.05.Conclusion: Simplified Cariogram is considered a valid tool for caries risk assessment in young adults. Thus, saving the extra burden from performing saliva tests could be achieved.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".