MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health Risks and Benefits of Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and Infancy

2025· review· en· W4409358662 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

VenueAnnual Review of Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFluoride Effects and Removal
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityYork University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEnvironmental healthPregnancyFluorideMedicineObstetricsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health authorities have promoted community water fluoridation (CWF) to prevent dental caries for more than 75 years. However, growing evidence has raised questions about the safety of this public health intervention, particularly for young children who are at risk of excess fluoride intake. Divergent opinions about the risk-benefit ratio of CWF have ignited a global debate. The efficacy of topical fluoride in preventing dental caries is strong, whereas contemporary evidence for systemic administration of fluoride is weaker. Inequalities in access to dental care and topical fluorides introduce an additional layer of complexity. This review discusses evidence showing that fluoride ingestion is not essential for caries prevention, offers little benefit to the fetus and young infant, and can cause dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. In an environment where fluoride is available from multiple sources, community-based administration of systemic fluoride may pose an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio for pregnant women and young children.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.305 · 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