Dentists' Views and Practice of Sedation and General Anaesthesia in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated Ontario dentists' views and use of sedation and general anaesthesia (GA) (n=1076; 37.9% response rate). A mixed mode format offered mailed and web survey options. Study participants were 69.7% male, 83.0% general practitioners, practicing 0.5-42 years (mean 20.6 years), with 40.6% from cities >500,000. 60.2% of respondents provided sedation. Dentists' underestimated patient interest in sedation/GA (66.8% vs. 43.9% not interested; 19.8% vs. 42.8% possibly interested; 13.4% vs. 12.4% definitely interested). Patients' preference for sedation/GA by service was also underestimated (p<0.001) except for extractions. Barriers to care were cost (72.2%) for providers; lack of training (38.2%) and patient demand (25.3%) for non-providers. Dentists reported use of sedation highest for extractions (1.5% deep sedation/GA-5.7% nitrous). Dentists' also overestimated patients' level of fear (somewhat afraid 19.95 vs. 9.8%; very afraid 10.6% vs. 2.0%; terrified 6.0% vs. 3.5%). This study confirms differences between dentists' use and estimation of patient demand for sedation/GA.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".