Dietary free sugar and dental caries in children: A systematic review on longitudinal studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dental caries, as a multi-factorial problem, is prevalent among children. The aim of this review was to assess the association between dietary free sugars (DFS) consumption and dental caries in 6- to 12-year-old children in the recent longitudinal evidence. Methods: In this systematic review, database search was performed in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science and Scopus using the keywords "diet", "dental caries" and "school children".We considered the articles published in English from 2004 to 2019. After duplicate removal,title, abstract data basell text of all included papers were assessed by two independent reviewers. The quality of included papers was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: From 2122 papers, ten longitudinal studies were included. In the included studies, the consumption of 100% juice (daily), candy (more than once a week), and soft drink and sweet drinks (at bedtime) were highly associated with caries in children. In few studies, daily consumption of water and dairy products was reported to be protective. However, some studies reported non-significant association between consumption of different sugary items and dental caries. The quality of included studies was moderate. Heterogeneity was observed in the measurement of caries outcome, and data collection tool for diet assessment, and statistical measure, which impeded the meta-analysis of data. Conclusion: The methodology and results in the longitudinal studies on the association of dietary free sugar consumption and dental caries in schoolchildren were heterogeneous, which urge the need for further standard research protocols in this area.
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 | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".