MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<b>PRISMA-P-checklist for i</b><b>mpact of haptic simulator in prosthodontics training during preclinic dental education: a systematic review protocol</b>

2024· dataset· en· W6902281918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyProtocol (science)ProsthodonticsVirtual realityStrengths and weaknessesSystematic reviewQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b>Background</b>Prosthodontics significantly impacts oral health-related quality of life, especially oral comfort, functions, aesthetics, and overall well-being. This discipline is grounded in a solid academic and evidence-based understanding of fundamental principles for managing dental diseases and aims to restore the health of teeth and supporting tissues and compensate missing ones. Dental education is evolving quickly with the rise of digital dentistry, especially in prosthodontics. Integrating augmented reality simulations and haptic feedback has significantly advanced this transformation. This systematic review protocol intends to determine the effectiveness of haptic simulators in prosthodontics training during preclinical dental education.<b>Methods</b>An exhaustive search strategy will be employed, exploring PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science and Cochrane Central to select relevant studies, thereby enhancing the robustness of the review findings. Boolean operators (AND,OR) were utilized to assemble MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Titles and abstracts screening to identify studies that satisfy the eligibility criteria was followed by the quality and risk of bias assessment for the selected studies, via the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data will be collected via standard form. Reviewers disagreement will be solved throughout debate, or by referring to a third opinion. This protocol will adhere the recommendations appointed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).<b>Discussion</b>The outcomes of this systematic review are highly significant for dental education exploring the importance of enhancing haptic simulation during preclinic prosthetic training.Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of virtual reality (VR) in relation to traditional preclinical training methods is crucial for developing effective educational strategies. This understanding can lead to enhanced training outcomes and increased student satisfaction, which in turn contributes to improved quality of clinical prosthetic services.<b>Systematic review registration</b>PROSPERO: CRD42024603681 (Registered on 30/10/2024).

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)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.016

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.333 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207