Question · asked by 1 review

Simplified caries prediction models (>=2 predictors; microbiome-primary studies excluded), but some pooled models include microbe predictors (Yaxuan 2023: S. mutans; Kim 2018: biofilm acidogenicity/saliva) vs No competing model: Model discrimination (area under the ROC curve, AUC)

Simplified childhood caries prediction models show moderate pooled discrimination (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.84) but with very high heterogeneity (I2=97.3%) and all models at high risk of bias (PROBAST); ungraded.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Simplified caries prediction models (>=2 predictors; microbiome-primary studies excluded), but some pooled models include microbe predictors (Yaxuan 2023: S. mutans; Kim 2018: biofilm acidogenicity/saliva) vs None (no competing model)
Model discrimination (area under the ROC curve, AUC) · Children and adolescents aged 1-18 years · Prediction of future/undiagnosed caries; cohort follow-up 3 months-10 years, Home/community preventive oral healthcare; detection of undiagnosed caries in asymptomatic children, Overall (6 validated models pooled)
Simplified childhood caries prediction models show moderate pooled discrimination (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.84) but with very high heterogeneity (I2=97.3%) and all models at high risk of bias (PROBAST); ungraded.
Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes
AUC 0.79 [0.73, 0.84]6 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
2025 All outcomes
18 January 202416Not applicable

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.