Question · asked by 1 review

Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model: Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)

Population: Children or adolescents
Intervention: Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors
Comparison: No competing model
Outcome: Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)

The Luo (2021) model had an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.77).

What each review found

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 6 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Finding	Effect	Studies	GRADE certainty
Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve) · Children and adolescents (≤18 years) · Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported, Home for rapid detection and preventive oral healthcare in asymptomatic children The Luo (2021) model had an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.77). Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes	AUC 0.766 [0.761, 0.771]	1 study	GRADE not reported
Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve) · Children and adolescents (≤18 years) · Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported, Home for rapid detection and preventive oral healthcare in asymptomatic children The Duan (2021) model had an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72). Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes	AUC 0.71 [0.69, 0.72]	1 study	GRADE not reported
Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve) · Children and adolescents (≤18 years) · Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported, Home for rapid detection and preventive oral healthcare in asymptomatic children, Yaxuan (2023) The Liu (2023) model had an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes	AUC 0.931 [0.876, 0.967]	1 study	GRADE not reported
Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve) · Children and adolescents (≤18 years) · Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported, Home for rapid detection and preventive oral healthcare in asymptomatic children, Wickramasinghe (2022) The Danushi (2022) model had an AUC of 0.59 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.67). Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes	AUC 0.592 [0.514, 0.671]	1 study	GRADE not reported
Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve) · Children and adolescents (≤18 years) · Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported, Home for rapid detection and preventive oral healthcare in asymptomatic children, Kim (2018) The Kim (2018) model had an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88). Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes	AUC 0.782 [0.681, 0.884]	1 study	GRADE not reported
Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve) · Children and adolescents (≤18 years) · Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported, Home for rapid detection and preventive oral healthcare in asymptomatic children The Qu (2022) model had an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.94). Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes	AUC 0.91 [0.87, 0.94]	1 study	GRADE not reported

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

The reviews

Review	Searched up to	Included studies	AMSTAR 2
Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes	18 January 2024	16	Not 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.

Prediction model for early childhood caries risk based on behavioral determinants using a machine learning algorithm · 2022 · included by 1 of these review
Identifying high-risk children for dental caries in school settings: A simple predictive model · 2022 · included by 1 of these review
Prediction model for early childhood caries risk based on behavioral determinants using a machine learning algorithm. · 2022 · included by 1 of these review
A predictive nomogram: a cross-sectional study on a simple-to-use model for screening 12-year-old children for severe caries in middle… · 2021 · included by 1 of these review
Nomogram prediction of caries risk among schoolchildren age 7 years based on a cohort study in Shanghai. · 2021 · included by 1 of these review
Simplified Prediction Model for Accurate Assessment of Dental Caries Risk among Participants Aged 10-18 Years. · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 metabolism in a human leukemia cell line. · 1986 · included by 1 of these review
Kim 2018 · included by 1 of these review

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.