A Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling Approach Using Biomonitoring Data in Order to Assess the Contribution of Drinking Water for the Achievement of an Optimal Fluoride Dose for Dental Health in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to an optimal fluoride concentration in drinking water advised for caries prevention purposes, the population is now exposed to multiple sources of fluoride. The availability of population biomonitoring data currently allow us to evaluate the magnitude of this exposure. The objective of this work was, therefore, to use such data in order to estimate whether community water fluoridation still represents a significant contribution toward achieving a suggested daily optimal fluoride (external) intake of 0.05 mg/kg/day. Therefore, a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model for fluoride published in the literature was used and adapted in Excel for a typical 4-year-old and 8-year-old child. Biomonitoring data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey among people living in provinces with very different drinking water fluoridation coverage (Quebec, 2.5%; Ontario, 70% of the population) were analyzed using this adapted model. Absorbed doses for the 4-year-old and 8-year-old children were, respectively, 0.03 mg/kg/day and 0.02 mg/kg/day in Quebec and of 0.06 mg/kg/day and 0.05 mg/kg/day in Ontario. These results show that community water fluoridation contributes to increased fluoride intake among children, which leads to reaching, and in some cases even exceeding, the suggested optimal absorbed dose of 0.04 mg/kg/day, which corresponds to the suggested optimal fluoride intake mentioned above. In conclusion, this study constitutes an incentive to further explore the multiple sources of fluoride intake and suggests that a new balance between them including drinking water should be examined in accordance with the age-related physiological differences that influence fluoride metabolism.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".