Prevalence of dental caries and oral hygiene among specially-abled children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental caries (tooth decay) is a common oral health problem among children, significantly impacting their overall well-being and quality of life. Therefore, it is of interest to find the prevalence of dental caries and oral hygiene status in specially-abled children. This cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the prevalence of dental caries and oral hygiene status in 225 specially-abled children. The participants, aged <18 years, were included in the study. The study included children with physical, intellectual and developmental disabilities, ensuring a diverse representation of conditions that may impact oral health. A total of 225 especially abled children participated in the study, with a mean age of 12.5± 3.4 years. The participants included 130 males (57.8%) and 95 females (42.2%). Children with intellectual disabilities exhibited the highest mean DMFT (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) score (4.2 ± 2.3), with 75% of them affected by dental caries. In comparison, children with physical disabilities had a mean DMFT score of 3.6 ± 1.9 and a caries prevalence of 62%. Thus, the prevalence of dental caries and poor oral hygiene status is notably high among specially-abled children, particularly those with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".