MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726335319 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05393-y

Association between duration of breastfeeding and malocclusions in primary and mixed dentition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2726335319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Montserrat Boronat-Catalá, Carlos Bellot‐Arcís, José Manuel Almerich‐Silla, Montserrat Catalá Pizarro

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingOdds ratioMalocclusionDentitionMeta-analysisObservational studyCrossbiteDentistryBreast feedingPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the current evidence on the possible effects of breastfeeding on different malocclusion traits in primary and mixed dentition. A systematic search was made in three databases, using terms related to breastfeeding and malocclusion in primary and mixed dentition. Of the 31 articles that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis, nine were included in the quantitative analysis. The quality of the 31 observational studies was moderate to high on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. It was found that the odds ratio for the risk of posterior crossbite was 3.76 (95% CI 2.01-7.03) on comparing children who had not been breastfed, with those breastfed for over six months, and rose to 8.78 (95% CI 1.67-46.1) when those not breastfed were compared to those breastfed for over twelve months. The odds ratio for class II malocclusion in children breastfed for up to six months compared to those breastfed for over six months was 1.25 (95% CI 1.01-1.55). Lastly, children who were breastfed for up to six months had an odds ratio of 1.73 (95% CI 1.35-2.22) for non-spaced dentition compared to those who were breastfed for over six months.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207