Pediatric Dentistsâ Behaviour Management of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed which behaviour management techniques, BMTs, pediatric dentists are using, and find effective in treating patients with Autism Spectrum Disorders, ASD and identified influences which contributed to their use. Surveys were mailed and emailed to 1669 members of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Seven hundred eighty-nine (48.2%) completed surveys were returned. Nearly 60% of respondents treated children with ASD weekly or more frequently. Of the 23 listed BMTs, General Anaesthesia, Tell-Show-Do, Distraction, and Non-verbal Communication, were considered effective. Seventy percent of respondents were primarily users of classical BMTs. Pharmacological and classical techniques, are used frequently, but may not be effective. Time and costs limit the use of modern techniques. Cost efficiency and long-term patient management were the most influential factors in selecting a BMT; patient co-operation was the least influential. Pediatric dentists recognized a need for further education related to behaviour management of children with ASD.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".