Outcome of non-surgical endodontic treatment: Initial treatment and retreatment. The Toronto Study Phase 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 4-6 year outcome of non-surgical endodontic treatment was assessed for Phase 4 of the Toronto Study Project, and the data pooled with that of the previous phases. The outcome--"healed" (no radiolucency, symptoms or signs other than tenderness to percussion) or "diseased" (either radiolucency, symptoms or signs)--was assessed by an independent, calibrated examiner. For initial treatment, 439/510 teeth (86%) were healed. Logistic regression revealed an increased risk of disease persistence for pre-operative radiolucency, two or more roots and, in teeth with radiolucency, for presence of complications and root filling with lateral compaction. For retreatment, 187/229 teeth (82%) healed. Logistic regression revealed an increased risk of disease persistence for pre-operative adequate root filling, perforation, radiolucency and, in teeth with radiolucency, for treatment in two or more sessions. The prognostic importance of the technique-related variables (root filling technique and number of treatment sessions) requires validation from randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".