Overdentures sobre implantes : critérios de cuidados para pacientes edêntulos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O mundo sem dentes: tendências demográficas, p. 3-14 Edentulismo, digestão e nutrição, p. 15-22 O impacto do edentulismo na função e na qualidade de vida, p. 23-28 Preferências e expectativas dos pacientes, p. 29-36 Overdentures sobre implantes versus próteses totais convencionais, p. 37-46 Calculando o custo da terapia com overdentures sobre implantes, p. 47-54 Escolhendo um sistema de implantes para a prática clínica: um método baseado em evidências, p. 55-60 Comparação das estratégias de tratamento para as overdentures sobre implantes, p. 61-70 Indicações e plano de tratamento para as overdentures sobre implantes na mandíbula, p. 71-82 Manejo protético das overdentures maxilares e mandibulares, p. 83-98 A influência dos sistemas de encaixe nas overdentures mandibulares retidas por implantes, p. 99-110 Estratégias de carregamento para overdentures sobre implantes na mandíbula, p. 111-128 Overdentures suportadas por dois implantes com encaixes tipo bola-tratamento passo a passo, p. 129-144 Diretrizes futuras, p. 145-154 Carta do Conselho de McGill sobre as overdentures, p. 155-157
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".