Association of water fluoride and urinary fluoride concentrations with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Canadian youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to fluoride has been linked with increased prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States and symptoms of inattention in Mexican children. We examined the association between fluoride exposure and attention outcomes among youth living in Canada. METHOD: We used cross-sectional data collected from youth 6 to 17 years of age from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (Cycles 2 and 3). Urinary fluoride concentration adjusted for specific gravity (UFSG) was available for 1877 participants. Water fluoride concentration measured in tap water samples was available for 980 participants. Community water fluoridation (CWF) status was determined by viewing reports on each city's website or contacting the water treatment plant. We used logistic regression to test the association between the three measures of fluoride exposure and ADHD diagnosis. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the three measures of fluoride exposure and the hyperactivity/inattention score on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). RESULTS: did not significantly predict ADHD diagnosis or hyperactive/inattentive symptoms. A 1 mg/L increase in tap water fluoride level was associated with a 6.1 times higher odds of an ADHD diagnosis (95% CI = 1.60, 22.8). A significant interaction between age and tap water fluoride level (p = .03) indicated a stronger association between tap water fluoride and hyperactivity/inattention symptoms among older youth. A 1 mg/L increase in water fluoride level was associated with a 1.5 SDQ score increase (95% CI: 0.23, 2.68, p = .02) for youth at the 75th percentile of age (14 years old). Similarly, there was a significant interaction between age and CWF. At the 75th percentile of age (14 years old), those living in a fluoridated region had a 0.7-point higher SDQ score (95% CI = 0.34, 1.06, p < .01) and the predicted odds of an ADHD diagnosis was 2.8 times greater compared with youth in a non-fluoridated region (aOR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.40, 5.76, p < .01). DISCUSSION: Exposure to higher levels of fluoride in tap water is associated with an increased risk of ADHD symptoms and diagnosis of ADHD among Canadian youth, particularly among adolescents. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".