Prédisposition génétique et MIH : une revue systématique de la littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: as the etiology of MIH is not fully elucidated and recently published studies increasingly suggest that genetic and/or epigenetic factors are linked to this disease, the objective of this study is to determine the association between these factors and MIH. Material and method: this is a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA recommendations, using Medline, Scopus, Lilas and Cochrane Library databases, and the protocol of which was registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD42023394208. The references found were extracted from each database to Zotero on December 4, 2023. The informations have been selected on a primary reading of the titles and the abstracts, which then led to a full reading of the articles. Studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. Data extraction was carried out by a first reviewer, then checked by a second and the risk of bias was assessed individually for each study using the criteria proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the quality assessment scale from Newcastle-Ottawa. Results: 14 articles have been included in the revue. The included studies all reported a link between certain genetic and/or epigenetic factors and the occurrence of MIH. Conclusion: this systematic review provides a global overview of the link between the presence of nucleotide polymorphisms in amelogenesis genes, in genes linked to immune response, the gene interaction between all these genes, the gene-environment interaction and the occurrence of MIH. However, the small number of studies on the role of genetic and/or epigenetic factors in the occurrence of MIH, the variability of the factors studied and the small sample sizes make it difficult to draw more precise conclusions. Other studies, on a larger scale and on different populations, must be undertaken.
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 | 0.033 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".