Exposure to Fluoride in Drinking Water and Hip Fracture Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many observational studies have shown that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with hip fracture risk. However, the findings are varied or even contradictory. In this work, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the relationship between fluoride exposure and hip fracture risk. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify relevant observational studies from the time of inception until March 2014 without restrictions. Data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed by two authors. Summary relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models as appropriate. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore possible explanations for heterogeneity. Finally, publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: Fourteen observational studies involving thirteen cohort studies and one case-control study were included in the meta-analysis. Exposure to fluoride in drinking water does not significantly increase the incidence of hip fracture (RRs, 1.05; 95% CIs, 0.96-1.15). Sensitivity analyses based on adjustment for covariates, effect measure, country, sex, sample size, quality of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores, and follow-up period validated the strength of the results. Meta-regression showed that country, gender, quality of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores, adjustment for covariates and sample size were not sources of heterogeneity. Little evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis suggests that chronic fluoride exposure from drinking water does not significantly increase the risk of hip fracture. Given the potential confounding factors and exposure misclassification, further large-scale, high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and hip fracture risk.
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 | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".