Development of a Core Outcome Set in Endodontics (COS-ENDO): Part 4 – COS-ENDO for Studies of Vital Pulp Therapy in Permanent Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Methodological heterogeneity and reporting bias complicate interpreting endodontic outcomes. Supported by the American Association of Endodontists and its Foundation, this study developed the Core Outcome Set for Endodontics (COS-ENDO) to standardize reporting for studies of Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment/Retreatment, Surgical Endodontics, Vital Pulp Therapy, Apexification, and Regenerative Endodontics. This article, Part 4 of a 5-part series, focuses on COS-ENDO for Vital Pulp Therapy, while other parts address the remaining treatments. METHODS: Outcomes were identified through a scoping review and a web-based survey of American Association of Endodontists practicing members. In a 2-round Delphi survey, clinicians, patients, and researchers rated outcomes on a 9-point scale. Ratings were assessed against consensus criteria, and a virtual meeting finalized COS-ENDO. RESULTS: Of the 97 invited participants to Round 1, 77 registered, and 73 (24 Academicians/Researchers, 26 Clinicians, and 23 Patients or their parents/caregivers) assessed 46 outcomes, with 17 excluded. The remaining outcomes-4 achieving consensus for inclusion and 25 lacking consensus-advanced to Round 2 for re-rating by 70 participants. This resulted in 10 outcomes achieving consensus for inclusion, and 19 lacking consensus. In the final meeting, 16 participants finalized the COS-ENDO for Vital Pulp Therapy studies, including Tooth survival, Pain, Signs of infection, Radiographic evidence of maintained periradicular health, Continued root development, Success, Functional tooth, Need for further intervention, and Adverse events/Complications. CONCLUSION: COS-ENDO is an important step in standardizing outcome reporting in endodontics, ensuring consistent reporting and enhancing research utility. Further efforts are needed to establish optimal measurement methods.
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 | 0.357 | 0.362 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".