Dental caries status in individuals with hearing difficulties: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the dental caries status in individuals with hearing difficulties. METHODS AND RESULTS: Searches were conducted in six databases with no restriction on publication date. The cross-sectional and comparative cross sectional studies assessing the dental caries status of hearing impaired individuals using standardized evaluation criteria were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Wiley Online, Lilacs, and Scopus databases were searched to identify the relevant papers published before August 1, 2021. The risk of bias assessment was carried out by New Castle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Three thousand three hundred thirty five potentially relevant references were identified in the systematic literature search. Thirteen relevant publications that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review and the meta analysis. The overall analysis of the included studies revealed pooled dental caries prevalence of 58.0% (95% CI 0.41-0.74) among the hearing impaired individuals. The overall dental caries experience of the included studies showed a mean pooled DMFT of 2.68 (95% CI 1.24-4.12). CONCLUSION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis reported high dental caries prevalence in hearing impaired individuals.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".