ArticlePloS one2024
Development of short forms for screening children's dental caries and urgent treatment needs using item response theory and machine learning methods.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classification of occlusal caries severity using spectrophotometric CIELAB measurements and machine learning algorithms.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning Algorithm With an Oversampling Technique in Limited Data Scenarios for the Prediction of Present and Future Restorative Treatment Need: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSurveys can assist in screening oral diseases in populations to enhance the early detection of disease and intervention strategies for children in need. This paper aims to develop short forms of child-report and proxy-report survey screening instruments for active dental caries and urgent treatment needs in school-age children.
methodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 497 distinct dyads of children aged 8-17 and their parents between 2015 to 2019 from 14 dental clinics and private practices in Los Angeles County. We evaluated responses to 88 child-reported and 64 proxy-reported oral health questions to select and calibrate short forms using Item Response Theory. Seven classical Machine Learning algorithms were employed to predict children's active caries and urgent treatment needs using the short forms together with family demographic variables. The candidate algorithms include CatBoost, Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Naïve Bayes, Neural Network, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine. Predictive performance was assessed using repeated 5-fold nested cross-validations.
resultsWe developed and calibrated four ten-item short forms. Naïve Bayes outperformed other algorithms with the highest median of cross-validated area under the ROC curve. The means of best testing sensitivities and specificities using both child-reported and proxy-reported responses were 0.84 and 0.30 for active caries, and 0.81 and 0.31 for urgent treatment needs respectively. Models incorporating both response types showed a slightly higher predictive accuracy than those relying on either child-reported or proxy-reported responses.
conclusionsThe combination of Item Response Theory and Machine Learning algorithms yielded potentially useful screening instruments for both active caries and urgent treatment needs of children. The survey screening approach is relatively cost-effective and convenient when dealing with oral health assessment in large populations. Future studies are needed to further leverage the customize and refine the instruments based on the estimated item characteristics for specific subgroups of the populations to enhance predictive accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.