Bibliographic record
Abstract
SYNTHESIS 5 -- 1 BACKGROUND 5 -- 2 CURRENT PRACTICE IN BELGIUM 7 -- 3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT AND METHODOLOGY 8 -- 4 CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PROPHYLACTIC REMOVAL OF PATHOLOGYFREE THIRD MOLARS 8 -- 4.1 ORTHODONTIC INDICATIONS 8 -- 4.2 NON-ORTHODONTIC INDICATIONS 8 -- 4.3 DECISION ANALYSIS 9 -- 4.4 NEED OF WELL-BALANCED COMMUNICATION9 -- 5 CONCLUSION 9 -- 6 REFERENCES 10 -- SCIENTIFIC REPORT 11 -- 1 INTRODUCTION 11 -- 1.1 BACKGROUND11 -- 1.2 CURRENT PRACTICE IN BELGIUM 13 -- 1.2.1 NIHDI nomenclature data 13 -- 1.2.2 Data from sickness funds 13 -- 1.2.3 Data from a private insurance company 14 -- 1.2.4 The report “Data Registration and Evaluation of the Oral Health of the Belgian Population 2008-2010” 14 -- 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 17 -- 2 METHODOLOGY 18 -- 2.1 GENERAL APPROACH 18 -- 2.2 LITERATURE SEARCHES 18 -- 2.2.1 Search strategy 18 -- 2.2.2 Quality appraisal 19 -- 2.2.3 Data Extraction 20 -- 3 CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PROPHYLACTIC REMOVAL OF PATHOLOGYFREE THIRD MOLARS 20 -- 3.1 NUMBER OF RETRIEVED PUBLICATIONS 20 -- 3.1.1 Systematic reviews 20 -- 3.1.2 Health technology assessment reports 20 -- 3.1.3 Clinical practice guidelines 21 -- 3.1.4 RCTs or CCTs21 -- 3.1.5 Conclusion 21 -- 3.2 RESULTS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 21 -- 3.2.1 Song et al. (2000) 21 -- 3.2.2 Mettes et al. (2005) 23 -- 3.3 RESULTS: CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE AND HTA REPORTS 24 -- 3.3.1 NICE guideline (2000) 24 -- 3.3.2 HTA report from The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2010) 24 -- 3.3.3 HTA report from the Regional HTA Centre of the Region Västra Götaland in Sweden (2010) 25 -- 3.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 25 -- 3.4.1 Methodological quality 26 -- 3.4.2 Literature review 26 -- 3.4.3 Conclusion 26 -- APPENDICES 27 -- APPENDIX 1. 27 -- APPENDIX 1.1. NIHDI NOMENCLATURE (INAMI/RIZIV)27 -- APPENDIX 2. 38 -- APPENDIX 2.1. GRADE SYSTEM: LEVELS OF EVIDENCE 38 -- APPENDIX 2.2. AGREE INSTRUMENT (VERSION II) 39 -- APPENDIX 3. 41 -- APPENDIX 3.1. PUBMED SEARCH STRATEGY: GUIDELINES, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, META-ANALYSES 41 -- APPENDIX 3.2. EMBASE SEARCH STRATEGY: GUIDELINES, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, META-ANALYSES 42 -- APPENDIX 3.3. PUBMED SEARCH STRATEGY: RCT AND CCT 43 -- APPENDIX 3.4. EMBASE SEARCH STRATEGY: RCT AND CCT 44 -- APPENDIX 3.5. OTHER SEARCH STRATEGIES 44 -- APPENDIX 4. 45 -- APPENDIX 4.1. IDENTIFIED GUIDELINES AND THEIR QUALITY APPRAISAL (AGREE SCORE) 45 -- APPENDIX 4.2. IDENTIFIED SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND THEIR QUALITY APPRAISAL -- (DUTCH COCHRANE EVALUATION) 46 -- APPENDIX 4.3. EVIDENCE TABLES 50 -- APPENDIX 4.4. STAKEHOLDER MEETING 57 -- REFERENCES 60
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".