Dental caries and developmental defects of enamel in cerebral palsy: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the occurrence of dental caries and developmental defects of enamel (DDE) in individuals with and without cerebral palsy (CP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted searches across five databases and the grey literature. Data were organized using EndNote 20. Reporting followed the MOOSE checklist. A random-effects model meta-analyses were conducted using RStudio, presenting results as mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias of studies was analyzed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Among 1336 identified records, 25 studies involving 59,997 participants (mean age: 11.1 years) were included. Data of 12 were pooled into meta-analyses. No significant differences were found between CP and non-CP individuals across indices: DMFT (k = 7) (MD = 0.31; 95% CI [-0.42-1.05]), dmft (k = 4) (MD = 0.31; 95% CI [-0.50-1.14]), DMFS (k = 2) (MD = -0.61; 95% CI [-20.56-19.33]), dmfs (k = 3) (MD = 0.54; 95% CI [-1.09-2.17]), and DDE (k = 3) (OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.09-7.31]). The certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Individuals with CP do not appear to differ significantly from those without CP in terms of dental caries experience and DDE.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".