Pulp oxygen saturation measurement as a diagnostic tool for assessing pulp status in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: This study aimed to determine the mean oxygen saturation values (SpO 2 ) in primary teeth using pulse oximetry. Materials and Methods: This comprehensive literature search on pulse oximeter used for primary teeth in determining pulp vitality using MeSH terms in four electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Ovid SP , from January 1990 to January 2022. Studies reported the sample size and the mean SpO 2 values (with standard deviations) for each tooth group were included. The quality assessment of all the included studies was done using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis included studies reporting means and standard deviations of SpO 2 values. The I 2 statistics were used to determine the degree of heterogeneity among the studies. Results: A total of 90 studies were identified, of which five met the eligibility criteria that were qualified for the systematic review, and among them, three were included in the meta-analysis. All five included studies were of low quality due to the high risk of bias related to the patient selection, index test, and uncertainties about outcome valuation. In the meta-analysis, the mean fixed-effect measure of oxygen saturation in the pulp of primary teeth was 88.45% (confidence interval: 83.97%–92.93%). Conclusion: Though most of the available studies were of poor quality, the SpO 2 in the healthy pulp can be established (minimum saturation, 83.48%) in primary teeth. Reference values established might help clinicians to assess changes in pulp status.
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 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".