RETRACTED: The association between mode of childbirth delivery and early childhood caries: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early childhood caries (ECC), also known as dental caries, poses a significant challenge to the oral health and overall well-being of young children. This study aims to investigate the potential relationship between the mode of delivery and the odds of ECC. METHODS: We conducted a meticulous systematic review and meta-analysis, gathering studies from reputable databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Embase. The selected studies underwent rigorous evaluation for heterogeneity, utilizing statistical tests such as the Chi-square test, I2, meta-regression analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. We assessed the presence of publication bias using Begg's and Egger's tests, while the quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist. RESULTS: Our analysis included a robust dataset of 24 studies conducted between 1997 and 2024, involving a total of 71,732 participants. The meta-analysis revealed an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.86-1.30; P-value = 0.610) for dental caries in children born via cesarean section. Importantly, we found no evidence of publication bias, as indicated by non-significant results from Begg's test (P-value = 0.568) and Egger's test (P-value = 0.807). Meta-regression analysis did not identify any significant associations between the study variables and the observed heterogeneity (P > 0.10). Sensitivity analysis further confirmed the stability of the study results, with no significant changes detected. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our comprehensive meta-analysis provides compelling evidence that there is no significant association between the mode of delivery and the odds of ECC. These findings enhance our understanding of this important topic and have implications for clinical practice and public health interventions.
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 | 0.063 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".