MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116112122 · doi:10.1111/cdoe.12616

Socioeconomic status and oral health‐related quality of life: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020· review· en· W3116112122 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMedicineObservational studyMeta-analysisConfidence intervalScopusQuality of life (healthcare)Critical appraisalDemographyStudy heterogeneitySystematic reviewMEDLINEGerontologyEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review observational studies assessing the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in children, adolescents and adults. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and Scopus databases for articles published up to September 2020. Two independent reviewers performed the search and critical appraisal of the studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies that evaluated the effect of SES on the OHRQoL in all age groups using validated methods. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted for meta-analysis followed by a meta-regression analysis. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled calculate prevalence ratio (PR) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 6114 publications. Some 139 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Of those, 75 were included in the general meta-analysis they represented a total sample of 109 269 individuals. People of lower SES had worse OHRQoL (PR 1.30; 95% CI 1.26-1.35). In the meta-analyses of different subgroups, an association was found between low SES and worse OHRQoL in countries of all economic classifications, in all age groups and irrespective of the socioeconomic indicator used. A socioeconomic gradient in OHRQoL was also observed, in which the lower the individuals' socioeconomic position, the poorer their OHRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals of low SES had poorer OHRQoL, regardless of the country's economic classification, SES indicator and age group. Public policies aiming to reduce social inequalities are necessary for better OHRQoL throughout life.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
grokMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
opusMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysismedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.230 · 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