Association between passive tobacco exposure and caries in children and adolescents. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the available evidence on the association between exposure to tobacco use in the womb and in infancy and the presence of caries in primary and permanent dentition in children and adolescents. A systematic review was conducted through searches in 4 data bases (Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science), complemented by hand-searching. Of the 559 articles identified, 400 were duplicates. Finally, 28 articles were included in the qualitative review and 21 in the meta-analysis. Their quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The quality was medium in 44% of the articles included and high in 56%. The overall meta-analysis gave a significant odds ratio (OR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.39-1.68, Z test p-value = 0.000) and high heterogeneity (Q = 200.3, p = 0.000; I2 = 86.52%). Separate meta-analyses were also performed for three subgroups: exposure in the womb (prenatal) and caries in primary dentition, which resulted in a significant OR = 1.46 with a 95% CI of 1.41-1.52 (Z test p = 0.000), without heterogeneity (Q = 0.91, p = 0.824; I2 = 0%); exposure in infancy (postnatal) and caries in primary dentition, with OR = 1.72 (95% CI 1.45-2.05) and high heterogeneity (Q = 76.59, p = 0.00; I2 = 83.01%); and postnatal exposure and caries in permanent dentition, with OR = 1.30 (95% CI 1.25-1.34) and no heterogeneity (Q = 4.48, p = 0.880; I2 = 0%). In children and adolescents, a significant though moderate association was found between passive tobacco exposure and 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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".