ArticleClinical interventions in aging2025
Identification of Risk Group for Root Caries and Analysis of Associated Factors in Older Adults Using Unsupervised Machine Learning Clustering.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aging and caries experience in adults: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Oral Multimorbidity Patterns and Determinants Among Chinese Older Adults: A Latent Class Analysis.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify the high-risk group for root caries using unsupervised machine learning and to explore the associated factors. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 423 adults aged 65 to 74 years, surveyed in 2021. Clusters representing root caries risk were identified using k-prototypes clustering, with the optimal number of clusters determined by the maximum silhouette index. The confusion matrix and alluvial diagram were used to visualize the predictive accuracy and composition of the clustering results. Binary logistic regression models further analyzed the associated factors, while ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves and the random forest model visualized the predictive performance and the most important associated factors. Results: Two clusters were identified: cluster 1, with low root caries risk (21.5% with and 78.5% without root caries), and cluster 2, with high root caries risk (83.7% with and 16.3% without root caries). The clustering results predicted root caries with an accuracy of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.79, and specificity of 0.83. Overlapping results from binary logistic regression and the random forest model indicated that older age, more periodontal pockets, more attachment loss, female, a history of systemic diseases, presence of xerostomia, and presence of unrestored tooth loss were positively associated with cluster 2. Brushing tooth ≥2 times per day and a high level of oral health knowledge were negatively associated with cluster 2. The ROC curve for the binary logistic regression model showed an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.84. Conclusion: Individuals who are older, female, with poorer oral and systemic health status, suboptimal oral hygiene behaviors, and lower oral health knowledge levels are more likely to be identified as high-risk group. The identified factors, revealed through unsupervised machine learning, can facilitate personalized prevention and management strategies for root caries in older adults.
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.