Contact Author Knowledge and Attitudes about Epilepsy: A Survey of Dentists in London, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The controversial relation between societal knowledge and attitudes about epilepsy may affect the access of people with epilepsy to dental care. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire that evaluated knowledge about epilepsy, atti-tudes toward epilepsy and willingness to provide dental care to people with epilepsy was administered to all 288 dentists in the city of London, Ontario, Canada. Results: Of the 197 respondents, 75.6 % were general dentists. Knowledge was patchy about the epidemiology, causes, treatment and recognition of epilepsy. Six percent of dentists did not think that they could safely treat a patient with epilepsy in their offices. Conclusion: Dental care providers ’ negative attitudes to and lack of knowledge about epilepsy may directly affect the access to dental care for people living with this problem. Epilepsy is a chronic disease character-ized by the risk of recurrent seizures. In developed countries, an average of 4 or 5 of every 1,000 people has epilepsy.1 In de-veloping countries, this rate can be as high as
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".