Dental self-care and visiting behaviour in relation to social inequality in caries experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate associations of dental behaviour with social inequality in oral health. Methods: A random sample of 45-54 year-olds from Adelaide, South Australia was surveyed by self-complete questionnaire in 2004-05 (n=879, response rate 43.8%). Oral examinations were performed by calibrated dentists on 709 persons (80.7% of participants). Results: The mean (SE) number of decayed teeth (D) was 0.4 (0.04), with 5.3 (0.2) missing teeth (M), 11.0 (0.2) filled teeth (F) and 16.6 (0.2) DMFT. The majority brushed their teeth 8 or more times per week (78.8%) and had made a dental visit within the last 12 months (63.7%). Nearly a quarter had a household income of under $30,000 (24.0%). Multivariate analysis showed a three-way interaction (p<0.05, GLM) between income and brushing and visiting for decayed teeth, showing that the relationship between decayed teeth and dental behaviour varied across levels of income. Among those who had not made a dental visit in the last 12 months, those who brushed their teeth 8 or more times per week in the low income group had D=0.7 (0.2) while those who brushed less often had D=2.2 (0.5) compared to D=0.3 (0.08) and D=0.3 (0.2) respectively in the high income group. Conclusion: Dental behaviour in terms of brushing and visiting was associated with social gradients in oral health for decayed teeth across income groups, with less favourable dental behaviour having a stronger negative association with oral health among lower income groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".