Supplementary Material for: Association of molar incisor hypomineralization with hypomineralized second primary molars: an updated systematic review with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is a correlation between molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) and hypomineralized second primary molars (HSPM), but this relationship has not been definitively confirmed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to reevaluate whether children with HSPM are more affected by MIH than non-HSPM children. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) for literature, published up to December 2022. Two independent reviewers conducted the study search and screening, quality assessment, and data extraction according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of bias assessment of all included cohort studies and case-control studies were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and cross-sectional studies were assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ) scale. RevMan 5.4 software was used for all data analyses, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect measures. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the potential sources of heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was tested and corrected by funnel plots and Egger’s test. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed using TSA 0.9.5.10 Beta software to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 8,944 children were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the non-HSPM group, the HSPM group had an increased likelihood of MIH (OR = 10.90, 95% CI = 4.59-25.89, P <0.05). All the included studies were of moderate-to-high quality. TSA and sensitivity analyses suggested the robustness of this outcome. Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrated a certain correlation between HSPM and MIH, suggesting that HSPM can play a predictive role in the occurrence of MIH. Further high-quality, multicenter and large-sample longitudinal studies are highly recommended.
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 | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.595 | 0.027 |
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".