Knowledge of Oral Cancer among the Fourth and Fifth Year Dental Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The literature data show insufficient knowledge and awareness about oral cancer among dental and medical students. Objective: To assess the knowledge of graduating dental students regarding oral cancer and to assess their awareness regarding the prevention and early detection of oral cancer. Also student’s smoking status was examined aimed to investigate their attitude towards smoking as a risk factor for development of oral cancer and to assess the prevalence of smoking among dental students. Subjects and Methods: The study group consisted of 83 students of the fourth and fifth years of dental medicine study who answered the questions written in the original 16-item questionnaire. Results: More than half of the students considered their knowledge to be good, a quarter of them regarded their knowledge as being poor. Almost 16% of students considered their knowledge to be very good, whereas only two students rated their knowledge as ‘excellent’. Students of the fifth year were more likely to be smokers compared to fourth year students (39.5% vs. \n22.5%). Higher percentage of non-smokers than smokers had marked ‘stop smoking’ as an important preventive measure (non-smokers 91.2%, smokers 84.3%, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Majority of the students of fourth and fifth year of study rate their knowledge about oral cancer as good. A large number of students of both years considered hairy leukoplakia a potentially malignant disorder. Students non smokers recognize “stop smoking” as an important preventive measure unlike students smokers who show a more realistic attitude towards smoking as a risk factor for oral cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".