A scoping review on the association of early childhood caries and maternal gender inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this scoping review is to present current evidence regarding the association between early childhood caries (ECC) and maternal-related gender inequality. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive literature search using three databases: EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Literature published in English from 2012 to 2022 was included in the search and was restricted to only primary research by using the following key terms: "dental caries", "tooth decay", "gender", "sex", "preschool", "toddler," and "infant". The included studies were limited to those reporting an association between ECC and maternal aspects related to gender inequality. Titles and abstracts were screened, and irrelevant publications were excluded. The full text of the remaining papers was retrieved and used to perform the review. The critical appraisal of selected studies was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. RESULTS: Among 1,103 studies from the three databases, 425 articles were identified based on publication years between 2012 and 2022. After full-text screening, five articles were included in the qualitative analysis for this review. No published study was found regarding a direct association between ECC and maternal gender inequality at the level of individuals. Five included studies reported on the association between ECC and potential maternal-gender-related inequality factors, including the mother's education level (n = 4), employment status (n = 1), and age (n = 1). Regarding the quality of the included studies, out of five, two studies met all JBI criteria, while three partially met the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this scoping review, evidence demonstrating an association between gender inequality and ECC is currently limited.
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 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".