A cross-sectional study to compare caries and fluorosis in 7-year-old schoolchildren from a fluoridated area with those in a neighbouring non-fluoridated area in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental surveys of 1047, 7-year-olds matched by SES from the two cities were completed. Parental questionnaires on oral health determinants were returned by 411; home drinking water samples for analysis of fluoride concentration, by 384. Data were entered into SPSS ver 12.0, and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression. A 2001/02 oral health survey of children conducted in Peel Region, Ontario, Canada, found that 50% from non-fluoridated Caledon had dental caries compared to 37% in fluoridated Brampton. This study was undertaken to confirm the difference in dental caries found in the 2001/02 survey and determine what factors, including fluoridated water, might explain the difference. We found that 61% of Caledon children and 64% of Brampton children had deft + DMFT = 0. The mean deft + DMFT scores were 1.07 and 1.14, respectively. The effect of fluoridation on caries in these two communities was not evident.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".