MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413438129 · doi:10.11648/j.ijmcr.20250403.13

A Three-rooted Deciduous Second Molar in a 13-year-old Caucasian Female

2025· article· en· W4413438129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Traub, Robert Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeciduousMolarOrthodonticsMedicineBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<i>Introduction:</i> Several reports have been published highlighting accessory root formation in permanent molars. These studies have shown higher incidence of occurrence of accessory roots in patients of Mongolian, Taiwanese, Korean, Inuit, Native American and Indian descent. Very few reports have been published with a focus on accessory root formation in the primary dentition, in particular in the Caucasian population. <i>Objective:</i> This study was aimed at drawing attention to a rare morphological development in the Caucasian population. <i>Case Presentation:</i> This report presents a case of a 13-year-old Caucasian female with a three-rooted mandibular second molar tooth #T. The tooth was surgically removed, with some degree of difficulty, and upon inspection of the tooth following removal, it was observed that an accessory root was present. <i>Conclusions:</i> The presence of an accessory root may be demonstrated radiographically, but often is only discovered after excavation of the pulp chamber or following removal of the tooth itself. As such, it is important for the astute clinician to consider the potential for the presence of an accessory root, and to appreciate the potential complications an accessory may cause during endodontic or surgical treatment. Appropriate imaging should be obtained preoperatively if an accessory root is suspected, and treatment planning should be adjusted accordingly, in order to optimize successful treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Case ReportsSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207