The relationship between child temperament and early childhood caries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Among the potential risk factors associated with nursing caries/baby bottle tooth decay--a subset of Early Childhood Caries (ECC)--is a "strong-tempered" behavioral style in the child. However, the few empirical studies that have investigated this description remain controversial. The research goal of this study was to operationalize the "strong-tempered" profile and investigate its association to parental feeding practices and ECC levels. METHODS: In an observational-correlational study design, 58 children (ASA I), ages 18 to 70 months (M = 43 months, SD = 17), were reliably assessed for ECC levels by a clinical evaluator. A second evaluator, blind to ECC status, interviewed parents using a demographic survey, a feeding practices measure, and the EAS Temperament Survey for Children. RESULTS: Multiple regression analyses indicated that none of the four temperament factors (Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Shyness) significantly predicted duration of feeding habit defined as the length of time in months that the child breast or bottle fed, whichever lasted the longest. However, the combination of greater duration of feeding habit and higher levels of Shyness predicted all three measures of ECC: the presence or absence of caries (r2 = .19, P < .001), the number of carious teeth (r2 = .23, P < .001) and the number of carious surfaces (r2 = .21, P < .001). Furthermore, the addition of Native status significantly increased the predictive value of all of three models (r2 = .37, r2 = .43, r2 = .29, respectively, Ps < .0001). CONCLUSION: Temperament did not predict the duration of feeding habit but together, shyness and duration of feeding habit was associated with ECC.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".