Association between black stains and early childhood caries - A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the association between black stains and early childhood caries. METHODS: Seven electronic databases and hand search were carried out using keywords on black stains and early childhood caries. Articles published in English from January 1947 to January 2020 were included. A total of 38,686 articles were retrieved, and 38,645 duplicate and irrelevant records were removed. Among the 41 articles obtained, 21 articles were excluded after screening the title and abstracts. Fifteen articles were excluded after analyzing the full text. Finally, five articles with cross-sectional study designs were included in this review. Quality analysis was carried out using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: All the five articles included in this review had a low risk of bias. Two articles showed a significant negative association and one article showed a significant positive association between black stains and early childhood caries. CONCLUSION: Cross-sectional design and heterogeneity of the included articles provide an ambiguous opinion on the association between black stains and early childhood caries. More of longitudinal studies following rigid methodology is needed to establish the association between black stains and early childhood 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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".