MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391403708 · doi:10.1038/s41405-024-00187-7

Doses of fluoride toothpaste for children up to 24 months

2024· article· en· W4391403708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBDJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFluoride Effects and Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToothpasteFluorideDentistryMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this study was to test the dose of fluoride toothpaste by parents for their children aged up to 24 months. METHODS: Parents who use fluoride toothpastes for their children were asked to dose two commercially available toothpastes (A and B) with 1000 ppm fluoride each for their children as they would normally do at home. The toothpaste amounts were weighed, and as reference, the weight of an 'optimal' grain of rice-size amount of each toothpaste was used. RESULTS: 61 parents dosed a mean of 0.263 ± 0.172 g toothpaste A and 0.281 ± 0.145 g toothpaste B. The parents' mean doses were 5.9 times higher for toothpaste A and 7.2 times higher for toothpaste B than an 'optimal' grain of rice-size amount (the reference dose as recommended). The difference between parent's and reference dose was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Moreover, 39.3% of parents were not aware about conditions of use and warnings that have to be printed on the package of fluoride toothpastes. CONCLUSION: In this study, parents significantly overdosed the toothpaste for their children. To avoid fluoride intake from toothpaste, parents can choose fluoride-free alternatives for the oral care of their infants and toddlers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it