- Article
Background/Objectives: Longitudinal dental examinations provide prognostic outcomes but are costly to collect. We investigated whether representations learned from public cross-sectional examinations could support prediction of new caries experience in baseline-sound permanent first molars when longitudinal labels are limited. Methods: An encoder learned masked tooth-state reconstruction from 5837 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey examinations. Among 919 baseline-eligible Saudi schoolchildren, 849 had complete eligible-tooth follow-up, with 263 events across 16 schools; frozen representations were evaluated for approximately one-year new caries experience. Nested internal–external evaluation across schools compared 15 prediction pipelines and representation controls, using development-only calibration and matched training-school budgets. Discrimination, probability accuracy, follow-up allocation, incomplete charts and outcome uncertainty were assessed. Results: Frozen transfer achieved an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.6848 versus 0.6643 for random forest, with Brier scores of 0.19461 and 0.19868; paired difference intervals included zero. At nominal 20% school capacity, 164 children were selected (19.32% realised capacity), capturing 89 versus 82 observed future cases: a difference of 2.66 percentage points (95% interval 0.31–5.86), conditional on fitted predictions. Exploratory training with eight of 15 development schools yielded AUROCs of 0.6663 and 0.6280, respectively. Allocation captured only four of 75 events among children aged 5–7. Conclusions: Transferred information may support limited-label prognosis, but clinically meaningful incremental value remains unconfirmed and selection coverage varies by age. Independent longitudinal validation and clinical-impact evaluation are needed before preventive-care deployment.
12 November 2026




















![Bodies and minds self-assemble from single cells as a process of alignment and autopoiesis. (A) Most complex biological forms begin as one cell—a fertilized oocyte, commonly thought to be well-described by the laws of physics and chemistry. (B) A gradual, slow process of developmental morphogenesis results in the final form of the organism, which may have complex structure and a mind which may not believe it is a “machine”. Our transformation from a chemical soup into an active embodied mind is continuous but heterogeneous: (C) while we commonly think of ourselves as a unified intelligence with a “centralized” brain, the fact is that even the pineal gland, of which there is only one in the brain, is made of cells (C′) and those cells in turn are made of myriad other active components (C″)—we are a collective intelligence at all scales. (D) The creation of an “individual” out of an excitable medium such as an embryonic blastoderm with hundreds of thousands of cells is a dynamic process that is not hardwired: scratches made in that blastoderm would result in independent self-organization in each island, resulting in multiple embryos forming. This reveals the potentiality for some non-pre-determined number of minds to arise out of the same substrate. Images in (A,B,D) courtesy of Jeremy Guay of Peregrine Creative, used previously in [29]. Image (B) used with permission from [30]. Image in (C′) courtesy of Jose Calvo, Science Photo Library. Image in (C″) courtesy of Evan Ingersoll and Gaël McGill. Image (D) used with permission from [31].](https://mdpi-res.com/philosophies/philosophies-11-00161/article_deploy/html/images/philosophies-11-00161-g001-550.jpg)






