Extraction préventive des dents de sagesse en l’absence de toute pathologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SYNTHÈSE 5 -- 1 CONTEXTE 5 -- 2 PRATIQUE ACTUELLE EN BELGIQUE 7 -- 3 LIMITE DE CE RAPPORT ET MÉTHODOLOGIE8 -- 4 CONNAISSANCES ACTUELLES SUR L’EXTRACTION PRÉVENTIVE DES DENTS DE SAGESSE SAINES 8 -- 4.1 INDICATIONS ORTHODONTIQUES 8 -- 4.2 INDICATIONS NON ORTHODONTIQUES 9 -- 4.3 ANALYSE DÉCISIONNELLE 9 -- 4.4 NÉCESSITÉ D’UNE INFORMATION CLAIRE ET COMPLÈTE 9 -- 5 CONCLUSION 10 -- 6 RÉFÉRENCES 10 -- SCIENTIFIC REPORT 12 -- 1 INTRODUCTION 12 -- 1.1 BACKGROUND12 -- 1.2 CURRENT PRACTICE IN BELGIUM 14 -- 1.2.1 NIHDI nomenclature data 14 -- 1.2.2 Data from sickness funds 14 -- 1.2.3 Data from a private insurance company 15 -- 1.2.4 The report “Data Registration and Evaluation of the Oral Health of the Belgian -- Population 2008-2010” 15 -- 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 18 -- 2 METHODOLOGY 19 -- 2.1 GENERAL APPROACH 19 -- 2.2 LITERATURE SEARCHES 19 -- 2.2.1 Search strategy 19 -- 2.2.2 Quality appraisal 20 -- 2.2.3 Data Extraction 21 -- 3 CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PROPHYLACTIC REMOVAL OF PATHOLOGYFREE THIRD MOLARS 21 -- 3.1 NUMBER OF RETRIEVED PUBLICATIONS 21 -- 3.1.1 Systematic reviews 21 -- 3.1.2 Health technology assessment reports 21 -- 3.1.3 Clinical practice guidelines 22 -- 3.1.4 RCTs or CCTs22 -- 3.1.5 Conclusion 22 -- 3.2 RESULTS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 22 -- 3.2.1 Song et al. (2000) 22 -- 3.2.2 Mettes et al. (2005) 24 -- 3.3 RESULTS: CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE AND HTA REPORTS 25 -- 3.3.1 NICE guideline (2000) 25 -- 3.3.2 HTA report from The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2010) 25 -- 3.3.3 HTA report from the Regional HTA Centre of the Region Västra Götaland in Sweden (2010) 26 -- 3.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 26 -- 3.4.1 Methodological quality 27 -- 3.4.2 Literature review 27 -- 3.4.3 Conclusion 27 -- APPENDICES 28 -- APPENDIX 1. 28 -- APPENDIX 1.1. NIHDI NOMENCLATURE (INAMI/RIZIV)28 -- APPENDIX 2. 39 -- APPENDIX 2.1. GRADE SYSTEM: LEVELS OF EVIDENCE 39 -- APPENDIX 2.2. AGREE INSTRUMENT (VERSION II) 40 -- APPENDIX 3. 42 -- APPENDIX 3.1. PUBMED SEARCH STRATEGY: GUIDELINES, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, -- META-ANALYSES 42 -- APPENDIX 3.2. EMBASE SEARCH STRATEGY: GUIDELINES, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, -- META-ANALYSES 43 -- APPENDIX 3.3. PUBMED SEARCH STRATEGY: RCT AND CCT 44 -- APPENDIX 3.4. EMBASE SEARCH STRATEGY: RCT AND CCT 45 -- APPENDIX 3.5. OTHER SEARCH STRATEGIES 45 -- APPENDIX 4. 46 -- APPENDIX 4.1. IDENTIFIED GUIDELINES AND THEIR QUALITY APPRAISAL (AGREE SCORE) 46 -- APPENDIX 4.2. IDENTIFIED SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND THEIR QUALITY APPRAISAL -- (DUTCH COCHRANE EVALUATION) 47 -- APPENDIX 4.3. EVIDENCE TABLES 51 -- APPENDIX 4.4. STAKEHOLDER MEETING 58 -- REFERENCES 61
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".