Dental trauma in children and adolescents with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood neurodevelopmental disorder primarily characterized by inattention and hyperactivity that affects approximately 7.2% of children and adolescents worldwide. This study aimed to assess whether children and adolescents with ADHD were more likely to have dental trauma when compared to their healthy peers. METHODS: This study was reported following the statements proposed in MOOSE (Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, APA PsycINFO, LILACS, and grey literature were searched until October 2022. Observational studies with a control group were eligible. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was performed using the R language. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was applied. RESULTS: = 18.6% [0.0%-87.5%]). The risk of bias was high. The strength of the evidence was "very low." CONCLUSION: Children and adolescents with ADHD are more likely to have dental trauma than their non-ADHD peers. However, due to limitations in the design of the included studies, a causal relationship cannot be established.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".