Measuring Differences of Interpretation among Dentists on Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine if the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines for dentists' prescription of prophylactic antibiotics guarding against bacterial endocarditis, which are based on gingival manipulation, are applied consistently by dental faculty. Methods: An emailed survey was conducted of U.S. and Canadian dental faculty regarding which of 24 dental procedures require gingival manipulation and which require prophylactic antibiotics. Confidence intervals were calculated for the proportion of subjects who considered gingival manipulation part of a procedure. If the confidence interval included 75%, we deemed it a consensus. Similarly, we calculated confidence intervals for whether subjects would prescribe antibiotics, and deemed 75% to be a consensus. Results: 122 subjects responded to the survey. No response rate could be calculated. Faculty reached consensus on prescribing for 66% of procedures. For gingival manipulation, consensus was achieved for 83% of the procedures. Conclusion: The lack of concordance between the two categories suggests that the 2007 guidelines are unclear for the dental faculty members. This conclusion likely extends to all dentists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".