MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255899797 · doi:10.1111/ipd.12521

Preventive Dentistry

2019· article· en· W4255899797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Kirthiga, Murugan, C Bezerra-Vieira, T Vieira-Da, M Charantola-Rodrigues, Camila Palma-Portaro, C Lara-Olivares, M Osuna-Gavica, L Jengfen, W Han-Hsuan, C Cid-Mondragón, Cecilia Carlota Barrera Ortega, Álvaro García Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: To perform a systematic review to assess current evidence for association between various risk factors and the prevalence or incidence of Early Childhood Caries (ECC) .Case reports: Two reviewers searched various databases till January 2019 to identify studies.Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to perform risk of bias assessment.The included studies were categorized based on income according to World Bank classification.Data were summarized in a meta-analysis using fixed and random-effects inverse generic meta-analyses.From 7034 screened records, 89 studies evaluating a total of 1,352,097 individuals were included.Twenty-three were of high, 46 of moderate, and 20 of low quality.A total of 123 risk factors were found.Metaanalysis revealed that the strongest risk factors found in the high-income countries were presence of dentinal caries (dmft 0) [OR 4.21(2.18-8.16)]and high levels of mutans streptococci [OR 3.83 (1.81-8.09)].In the upper-middle-income countries, presence of enamel defects [OR 14.62 (6.10-35.03)]was found to be the strongest risk factor.No studies were found in the lower-middle income and lower income categories respectively.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.018

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Paediatric DentistrySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207