Salivary flow rate in children and teenagers with Down syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our review was to group the evidence and attempt to provide a consensus on the behavior of salivary flow rate in patients with Down syndrome. Observational studies evaluating salivary flow rate in children and teenagers with Down syndrome compared with non-syndrome individuals were selected. Ten sources of information were researched. The risk of bias was assessed by using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale tool . Inverse Variance was ty the SMD (95% Confidence Interval). The certainty of the evidence was determined according to the GRADE approach. Fourteen studies were evaluated. The results showed, with a very low certainty of evidence, that children and teenagers with Down syndrome present a lower salivary flow rate compared with non-syndrome controls (SMD: -1.71, 95%IC: -2.81; -0.60, p < 0.05), with significant differences in the saliva collection methods (p < 0.05) (Unstimulated saliva, SMD -5.07, 95%CI: -7.96; -2.18, p < 0.01; Stimulated saliva, SMD -0.80, 95%IC: -1.78; 0.17, p = 0.11). The behavior of the salivary flow rate is not significantly different between the age groups (p = 0.60) (up to 5 years old, SMD -1.85, 95%CI: -2.90; -0.81, p < 0.01; 2 to 18 years old, SMD -1.51, 95%CI: -2.24; -0.78, p < 0.01), and the sex (p = 0.70) (Male, SMD -1.77, 95%CI: -2.39; -1.16, p < 0.01; Female, SMD -1.53, 95%CI: -2.58; -0.48, p < 0.01). Children and teenagers with Down syndrome present a lower salivary flow rate with an unstimulated saliva collection method compared to non-syndrome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".