A prevalência do uso do fio dentário na dentição decídua: revisão sistemática e meta-análise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta revisão sistemática teve como objetivo avaliar a prevalência do uso do fio dentário na dentição decídua. A pesquisa sistemática em seis bases de dados, B-on, Cochrane Library, PubMed, SciELO, Science Direct e Web of Science, permitiu encontrar 2333 artigos, que após seleção resultou na inclusão de 7 estudos observacionais que avaliaram a prevalência do uso do fio dentário em crianças até 6 anos de idade. A avaliação de risco de viés foi realizada utilizando a ferramenta Newcastle-Ottawa, mostrando que todos os artigos apresentaram boa qualidade. Seis dos sete estudos mostraram que mais de 70% das crianças nunca utilizam fio dentário. A meta-análise mostrou uma prevalência de uso de fio dentário de apenas 12,60% (IC95%: 7,69%-18,52%), a partir de estudos com elevada heterogeneidade de resultados (I2=94,75%; IC95%: 91,44%-96,78%). A forma de avaliação de utilização de fio dentário (sim/não) ou diário versus outras opções deverá ser alvo de homogeneidade em futuros estudos.
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 | 0.047 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".