Nutritional status and feeding practices of First Nations and Metis children and their association with early childhood caries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – To investigate the baseline nutritional status and feeding practices of First Nations and Metis children in Manitoba participating in a community-based participatory oral health study and whether there were any associations with early childhood caries (ECC). Methods – This cross-sectional study assessed the oral health status of Indigenous children <72 months of age while their parent(s)/caregiver(s) completed a questionnaire, which included the Nutrition Screening Tool for Every Preschooler (NutriSTEP) and questions on children’s dietary practices. The analysis included descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and linear regression. A p value ≤0.05 was significant. Results – Overall, 146 children were recruited at a mean age of 40.8±20.4 months, and 59.6% had ECC. The mean decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (dmft) score was 4.9±5.3 (range 0–20). While the mean NutriSTEP score was 19.9±6.2 (median 19.5) suggesting a low risk for impaired nutritional status, 50.0% of children were at moderate or high risk for impaired nutritional status. There was no significant difference in NutriSTEP scores between First Nations and Metis children (p=0.29), and no association was found between NutriSTEP risk categories and ECC (p=0.77). Children who frequently ate meat, fish, poultry, or alternatives (NutriSTEP Q5) were significantly more likely to have ECC (p=0.032). Children who never received nutritional supplements (NutriSTEP Q13, p=0.05) were significantly more likely to have ECC. Children who used a pacifier were less likely to have ECC than children who did not (p<0.01). Conclusions – Although half of the children classified using the NutriSTEP were at low risk, the other half were at moderate and high risk. Children classified as high risk were not shown to have a statistically significant association with ECC. Specific NutriSTEP questions, however, were shown to be significant for ECC. In addition, numerous childhood feeding practices were found to play a significant role in the prevalence of ECC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".