MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128729382 · doi:10.1186/s40733-021-00068-y

Comparison of dental caries (DMFT and DMFS indices) between asthmatic patients and control group in Iran: a meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W3128729382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadia Elyassi Gorji, Pegah Nasiri, Ali Malekzadeh Shafaroudi, Mahmood Moosazadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueAsthma Research and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDentistryChecklistConfidence intervalAsthmaInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The association between caries index, which is diagnosed by Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT), and asthma has been assessed in several studies, which yielded contradictory results. Meta-analysis is the statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies and reducing the differences among parameters due to the increased number of studies involved in the analysis process. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the relationship between dental caries using decayed, missing, filled teeth indices (DMFT, dmft, and DMFS indices) and asthma using meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases were searched using such keywords as "Asthma," "Caries," "DMFT," "DMFS," "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 (NOS). After that, standardized mean difference (SMD) of DMFT, dmft, and Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces (DMFS) indices were estimated. RESULTS: The number of 10 evidence was extracted out of nine studies in which mean oral health indices were compared between asthmatic patients and the control group. Out of 10 evidences that examined the association of DMFT, dmft, and DMFS with asthma, these indices were higher in asthmatic patients than the control group in seven cases. In three cases, these differences were statistically significant. The SMD of DMFT, dmft, and DMFS indices between asthmatic patients and the control group at the confidence level of 95% were reported as 0.29 (- 0.05, 0.62), 0.48 (- 0.20, 1.17), and - 0.05(- 0.30, 0.21), respectively. CONCLUSION: According to the results, the prevalence of dental caries is higher among patients with asthma than in the control group. Therefore, having asthma could be considered a risk factor for the development of dental 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.049
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsthma Research and PracticeSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207