Using chlorhexidine varnish to prevent early childhood caries in American Indian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy of 10% chlorhexidine (CHX) dental varnish applied to the mothers' dentition in preventing caries in American Indian children. METHODS: This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Mother-child pairs were enrolled when the child was 4.5-6.0 months. Mothers received 4 weekly applications of the study treatment (CHX or placebo) followed by single applications when her child was age 12 and 18 months. Children received caries examinations at enrollment, 12, 18 and 24 months. Analyses were limited to the intent-to-treat (ITT) group: children whose mothers received the first study treatment and who received at least one post-baseline exam. The outcome variable was the number of new carious surfaces (NNCS) at the child's last visit. Wilcoxon nonparametric and Fisher's exact tests were used to test differences between the active and placebo groups. RESULTS: We randomized 414 mother-child pairs, with 367 (88.6%) included in the ITT group (active = 188, placebo = 179). The proportion of children caries-free at their final exam was 51.1% and 50.8% for the active and placebo groups (P > 0.99). The mean NNCS for the active and placebo groups was 3.82 (standard deviation [SD] = 8.18) and 3.80 (SD = 6.08), respectively (P = 0.54). The proportion with NNCS > 6 was 18.1% for active children versus 27.9% for placebo (relative risk [RR] = 0.65, P = 0.03). The number needed to treat to shift one child from NNCS > 6 to a lower severity was 10.2. CONCLUSIONS: In this population CHX varnish did not reduce the mean NNCS or proportion of children with caries, but did reduce the proportion with severe caries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".