Factors associated with the development of dental caries in children and adolescents in studies employing the life course approach: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article was to conduct a systematic review of studies that used the life course approach to evaluate the association between factors experienced in early life and throughout the lifetime and the development of dental caries in children and adolescents. A systematic search of five electronic databases was carried out. Hand searches of the reference lists of the included articles and a gray literature search were also performed. Quantitative studies that adopted the life course approach to examine the factors associated with the development of dental caries in children and adolescents were selected. Abstracts were screened by two reviewers. Reports with relevant abstracts received full-text review and were examined for inclusion in the present systematic review. Qualitative evaluation of the included articles was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. As a result of the high degree of heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not feasible. Among the 48 articles submitted to full-text analysis, 11 were included in the present systematic review. Different life course factors were associated with the development of dental caries among children and adolescents, including sociodemographic, biological, psychological, and oral health behaviors, as well as the dental status of mothers, children, and adolescents.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".