Can Hemophilia Impact on the Oral Health Conditions of Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review and Metanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyze if the oral health conditions in children and adolescents are associated with hemophilia (PROSPERO-42020168192). Material and Methods: The search strategy was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs/BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Grey literature databases. Two independent researchers assessed the risk of bias in these studies by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For the meta-analysis, the clinical conditions data were extracted as numerical variables according to their indexes, such as dental caries experience (dmft/DMFT), gingival condition (Modified Gingival Index - IGM), and oral hygiene (Plaque Index - PI). The quality of the evidence of the meta-analysis was evaluated by the GRADE tool (GRADEproGDT). Results: From a total of 431 studies, 27 were included, and 10 were included in the meta-analysis. The studies presented a moderate risk of bias, ranging from 2 to 7 points. The dental caries experience in primary (-0.62; CI95%: -1.68–0.43) and permanent dentitions (-0.05; CI95%: -0.69–0.59), gingival condition (-0.12; CI95%: -0.27–0.03), and oral hygiene (0.36; CI95%: -0.06–0.77) did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Based on studies with very weak evidence, there were no differences in the oral health conditions of children and adolescents with and without hemophilia.
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 | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".