Research on racial/ethnic inequities in oral health over the past 80 years: The role of racism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aims to (1) describe trends in explanations provided for racial/ethnic inequities in dental caries and periodontitis, and (2) explore the patterns of relatedness among explanations for these inequities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Highly cited publications based on studies indexed in the Scopus database were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Explanations for racial/ethnic inequities were classified into eight different, but interrelated domains. We assessed trends and examined the relations among explanations using multiple correspondence analysis. RESULTS: A total of 200 articles among the most cited publications were selected. The proportion of studies invoking racism as an explanation for racial inequities in oral health increased from 0% to 14.3%, from 1937 to 2020. The proportions of individual socio-economic factors increased from 52.0% to 82.9%, and dental care from 28.0% to 62.9%. The remaining explanations were stable: psychological/behavioural processes (62.5%), biological factors (49.5%), contextual/area-level effects (24.0%) and immigrant paradox (4.0%). Multiple correspondence analysis revealed a smaller axial distance between racism and the following categories: studies from Brazil, recent publications and Blacks/Hispanics/mixed-race groups. Publications about immigrants were axially closer to the high-income countries category. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings call on dental researchers to consider racism as a cause for existing racial/ethnic inequities in oral health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".