MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215711931 · doi:10.2196/29702

Enamel Renal Syndrome: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2021· review· en· W3215711931 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Imaan Amina Roomaney, Salma Kabbashi, Manogari Chetty

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmelogenesis imperfectaGrey literatureMEDLINEMedicineProtocol (science)Data extractionNephrocalcinosisSystematic reviewPathologyDentistryAlternative medicineEnamel paintInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Enamel renal syndrome (ERS) (OMIM 204690) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by hypoplastic amelogenesis imperfecta, failed tooth eruption, intrapulpal calcifications, gingival enlargement, and nephrocalcinosis. The rarity of the condition and the variability of the phenotype has led to ERS not being fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to account for the range and current state of knowledge on ERS and synthesize these findings into a comprehensive summary, focusing on the pathophysiology, genotype-phenotype correlations, and patient management from a dental perspective. METHODS: The authors will conduct a systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), BioMed Central, EbscoHost Web, Web of Science, and WorldCat. We will include all studies with human participants with a confirmed diagnosis of ERS. Articles will be screened in two stages (ie, initially by title and abstract screening and then full-text screening by two independent reviewers). Data extraction will be conducted using a customized electronic data extraction form. We will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies. We will structure the results according to themes. RESULTS: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework. The electronic search was conducted in July 2020 and updated in April 2021. The research findings will be published in an open access journal. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists should be able to identify patients with clinical features of ERS so that they receive appropriate referrals for renal evaluation, genetic counseling, and oral rehabilitation to increase the patient's quality of life. A scoping review is the most appropriate method to conduct this comprehensive exploration of the current evidence, which may be sparse due to the rarity of the condition. It will also enable us to identify gaps in the research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/cghsa. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29702.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.014
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1350.019

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 head0.701
GPT teacher head0.710
Teacher spread0.008 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207