Dental caries in individuals with <scp>D</scp>own syndrome: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown a lower experience of caries in people with Down syndrome compared to individuals without Down syndrome, but this issue has not been critically evaluated. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of the international literature on dental caries experience in people with Down syndrome. DESIGN: Three online databases (PubMed, LILACS, and Cochrane) were used to identify relevant studies on caries experience in people with Down syndrome published until May 2015. PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison group, and Outcome) criteria were used to screen studies by title and abstract. An assessment of the methodological study quality was performed according to the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The search resulted in 226 studies. Thirteen publications were included in the systematic review. Ten studies reported results of lower caries experience in individuals with Down syndrome in at least one age group studied. Three studies reported no differences in caries experience among the groups. All studies, however, included in this systematic review had limitations that increased the likelihood of bias in the study results. CONCLUSION: There is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that people with Down syndrome have a lower experience of caries than non-syndromic individuals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".