Are overweight/obese children at risk of traumatic dental injuries? A meta‐analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Observational studies which investigated the association between overweight/obesity and traumatic dental injuries (TDI) reported contrasting results. Thus, this meta-analysis was designed to investigate such an association with the highest possible levels of internal and external validities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed through PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google scholar to ensure generalizability. Eligible studies reported clear case and control definitions, exposure assessment. Where possible, odds ratio (OR) adjusted for covariates was extracted. Study quality was assessed through Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Only fair-to-good quality studies with NOS scores ≥4 were selected. The method to assess the pooled OR was based on the level of between-study heterogeneity, estimated through the Cochran's Q. Reliability of the pooled OR was improved by controlling for publication bias, sensitivity analysis to study inclusion, and subgroup analyses according to tooth type (permanent vs primary teeth) and country where the study was performed (Brazilian studies vs studies from other countries). RESULTS: Seventeen studies were selected from America, Asia, and Europe, their NOS scores ranged between 4 and 8. Overall, there were almost 28,000 patients, 7400 of them with TDI. The level of publication bias was minimal, and no adjustment was necessary. Between-study heterogeneity was high, and the random-effects method was used to assess the pooled OR, which resulted 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.53; P < 0.05). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses corroborated this estimate. CONCLUSION: The choice to increase internal and external validity levels decreased the precision of the pooled OR (i.e., confidence intervals were relatively wide). The statistically significant overweight/obesity-TDI association, together with the so-called counterfactual condition (i.e., TDI prevalence was higher among overweight/obese children than among lean children), suggests that causal association between these two conditions is plausible.
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 | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".