MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036777421 · doi:10.1111/edt.12172

Are overweight/obese children at risk of traumatic dental injuries? A meta‐analysis of observational studies

2015· review· en· W2036777421 on OpenAlex
Patrícia Corrêa‐Faria, Stefano Petti

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Traumatology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Trauma and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineMeta-analysisOverweightConfidence intervalOdds ratioCochrane LibrarySubgroup analysisGeneralizability theoryPublication biasDemographyObesityInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.485
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it