Comparison of decayed, missing, filled teeth index between thalassemia major patients and control group in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Scientific evidence of the association between Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) and thalassemia are conflicting and difficult to establish conclusions. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the relationship between dental caries (using the DMFT index) and thalassemia major using meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases were searched using such keywords as "Thalassemia," "Caries," "decay," "DMFT," "Iran," and OR operators, AND, and NOT. After the elimination of duplicate documentation, the articles which met the inclusion criteria were selected. Quality assessment was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Checklist. Thereafter, the standardized mean difference of the DMFT index was estimated. RESULTS: In eight studies, the mean DMFT was compared between patients with thalassemia major and the control group. In six studies, the mean of this index was higher in patients with thalassemia major than in the control group and in all six of the studies, the differences were statistically significant. The mean standardized difference of DMFT, D, M, and F were reported as 1.36 (0.41, 2.30), 2.63 (0.42, 4.84), 1.65 (-0.14, 3.45), and 0.02 (-1.67, 1.72), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis indicated that DMFT index was more inappropriate in patients with thalassemia, as compared to the control group which represents the higher incidence of dental caries among patients with thalassemia compared to the control group.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".