Breastfeeding and early childhood caries: a meta-analysis of observational studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The associations of breastfeeding and early childhood caries (ECC) risk have been evaluated in several epidemiological studies with conflicting results. We performed an update meta-analysis to estimate the association of feeding patterns, breastfeeding durations and ECC risk. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Studies were identified through searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase from January 1990 to December 2015. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies involving 73,401 participants aged 0-71 months were included. The overall analysis showed children ever breastfed had a reduced risk of ECC compared with those never breastfed (OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.61-0.97, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis revealed ever breastfeeding significantly reduced ECC risk for the studies with 3-6 years old children (OR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.90, p=0.005), with sample size >500 subjects (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.87, p=0.004), with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score >=6 (OR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.94, p=0.023), published after 2010 (OR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.82, p=0.006), with adjusted OR (OR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.18-0.88, p=0.023). Exclusive breastfeeding did not significantly decrease ECC risk compared with bottle feeding (OR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.35-1.31, p=0.248). The children breastfed >=12 months significantly increased ECC risk compared with those breastfed <12 months (OR=1.86, 95% CI: 1.37-2.52, p<0.001). Whereas, children breastfed >=6 months did not significantly increase ECC risk compared with those breastfed <6 months (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.83-1.53, p=0.428). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests ever breastfeeding may protect children from ECC, and breastfeeding duration >=12 months is associated with higher ECC risk. Additional large cohort studies are required to illustrate the relationship in further study.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".