Relationship between preterm, low birth weight, and development defects of enamel in the primary dentition: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aimed to systematically analyze the relationship between preterm (PT), low birth weight (LBW), and developmental defects of enamel (DDE) in the primary dentition. Methods Following the retrieval of the databases, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies on the relationship between PT, LBW and DDE, which had been published in English or Chinese up to January 2022 were included. The data about odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were extracted and calculated using STATA 12.0 Software. Case–control studies were evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), while cross-sectional studies and cohort studies were evaluated using the JBI scale. The heterogeneity of each study was evaluated using the Q test. Results A total of 15 studies were included, of which 8 studied the relationship between PT and DDE, and 13 explored the relationship between LBW and DDE including three about the relationship between very low birth weight (VLBW) and DDE. Seven studies explored the relationship between PT, LBW, and DDE. The results of this meta-analysis showed that both PT and LBW especially VLBW (OR = 7.19, 95% CI: 4.98–10.38) were risk factors for DDE in the primary dentition (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.55–3.51) (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.08–2.59). The subgroup results showed that PT and LBW were both associated with the occurrence of enamel hypoplasia (EHP) (OR = 6.89, 95% CI: 3.33–14.34; OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 2.10–3.68) rather than enamel opacity (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55–1.61; OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.66–1.61). There was no publication bias about the included studies (P = 0.75 > 0.05; P = 0.47 > 0.05). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that both PT and LBW especially VLBW are associated with a higher risk of DDE in the primary dentition. PT and LBW are both related to the occurrence of EHP. However, the relationship between PT, LBW, and enamel opacity has not been verified. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php? , identifier: CRD42021262761.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".