MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403517468 · doi:10.1016/j.identj.2024.07.1239

Primary prevention methods of dental caries

2024· article· en· W4403517468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rumiya Abbasova, Rena Aliyeva, Rovshan Amiraliyev

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Dental Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryPrimary (astronomy)MedicinePrimary preventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying the role of chewing gums(CGs) in prevention of major dental diseases among school children. During the study the organoleptic characteristics(taste, refreshing effect, density, consistency, etc.) of CGs produced by several countries were studied. The prevalence of major dental diseases among 120 children aged 8-15 years in 4 schools in Sabail district, Baku, Azerbaijan was studied. 68 schoolchildren participated in clinical studies. All participants had regular and confident oral hygiene habits before the study. For evaluation the effects of CGs on oral hygiene and equal distribution of masticatory force, “Orbit” CGs for children were used in our research. It was found that American and Canadian CGs are less common in Baku. Despite the fact that companies of these countries play a leading role in production of CGs, the share of these gums in the local market is only 8.9±3.4% of the total market. It was determined that 62 of the 120 examined schoolchildren follow standard oral hygiene rules along with CGs usage. Also, it was found that 27.6±2.8% of younger age group schoolchildren use CGs produced by unknown companies, and these gums contain carcinogenic substances coded as E121, E123, E240. The analysis of the purpose of using CGs showed that 53.0±2.9% of younger schoolchildren used it for pleasure; 80.8±24% of 12-15-years-old schoolchildren used it as both, a hygienic tool and for refreshment. By optimization methods it was determined that CGs have an effective preventive, cleansing, refreshing and active anti-caries effect when chewed per 1 pad, 3 times a day, 25 minutes after each meal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Dental JournalSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207