【Hacker News搬运】蛀牙死亡的报道被夸大了

hackernews

Title: Reports of the Death of Dental Cavities Are Greatly Exaggerated

蛀牙死亡的报道被夸大了

Text:

Url: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-technology/reports-death-dental-cavities-are-greatly-exaggerated

由于我是一个文本生成的AI，我无法直接访问外部网站或实时数据。但我可以提供如何使用JinaReader来抓取和分析内容的一般步骤，并假设内容为英文，给出一个分析总结的示例。

### 使用JinaReader抓取内容步骤：

1. **安装JinaReader**：
   首先，你需要在你的机器上安装JinaReader。这通常是通过pip安装的。

   ```bash
   pip install jina

配置JinaReader：
配置JinaReader以抓取指定网页的内容。

from jina import Client

# 创建一个客户端
client = Client()

# 添加一个处理器来抓取网页内容
client.add_processor(
    'webpage_scraping',
    processor_type='fetch',
    url='https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-technology/reports-death-dental-cavities-are-greatly-exaggerated'
)

# 执行抓取
response = client.run_all()

# 输出抓取到的内容
print(response[0].data)

分析内容：
使用NLP工具对抓取到的内容进行分析。

from jina import Document
from transformers import pipeline

# 创建一个翻译器
translator = pipeline('translation_en_to_zh', model='Helsinki-NLP/opus-mt-en-zh')

# 创建一个文档对象并添加到客户端
doc = Document()
doc.data = response[0].data
client.add_document(doc)

# 使用翻译器翻译内容
translated_data = translator(doc.data)[0]['translation_text']

# 打印翻译后的内容
print(translated_data)

总结内容：
分析翻译后的内容并总结。

假设翻译后的内容如下：
```
"麦吉尔大学的研究报告称，牙齿蛀牙导致的死亡被夸大了。研究人员发现，尽管蛀牙是一个常见的健康问题，但它很少直接导致死亡。"
```
总结：
根据麦吉尔大学的研究报告，牙齿蛀牙虽然是一个普遍存在的健康问题，但它很少是直接导致死亡的原因。这一发现可能会改变公众对于蛀牙严重性的看法，并可能影响公共卫生政策和牙科治疗实践。

请注意，上述代码和总结是基于假设的示例，实际应用中你需要根据实际的网页内容和结构来调整代码，并可能需要更复杂的NLP分析来生成准确的总结。

        
## Post by: Gadiguibou
        
### Comments: 
        
**comp_throw7**: &gt; in fact, it forms less than 2% of all the bacteria that cause caries<p>I tracked down the chain of citations here.  The directly cited article (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;sj.bdj.2018.81" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;sj.bdj.2018.81</a>) says the following:<p>&quot;These caries ecological concepts have been confirmed by recent DNA- and RNA-based molecular studies that have uncovered an extraordinarily diverse microbial ecosystem, where S. mutans accounts for a very small fraction (0.1%–1.6%) of the bacterial community implicated in the caries process.[20]&quot;<p>Note the sudden conversion of &quot;implicated in the caries process&quot; to &quot;cause caries&quot;.<p>The next step in the citation chain is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cell.com&#x2F;trends&#x2F;microbiology&#x2F;abstract&#x2F;S0966-842X(14)00225-X" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cell.com&#x2F;trends&#x2F;microbiology&#x2F;abstract&#x2F;S0966-842X...</a>.<p>&quot;In recent years, the use of second-generation sequencing and metagenomic techniques has uncovered an extraordinarily diverse ecosystem where S. mutans accounts only for 0.1% of the bacterial community in dental plaque and 0.7–1.6% in carious lesions[14,15].&quot;<p>Now the claim is merely one of prevalence!<p>The next steps in the citation chain, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;karger.com&#x2F;cre&#x2F;article-abstract&#x2F;47&#x2F;6&#x2F;591&#x2F;85901&#x2F;A-Tissue-Dependent-Hypothesis-of-Dental-Caries" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;karger.com&#x2F;cre&#x2F;article-abstract&#x2F;47&#x2F;6&#x2F;591&#x2F;85901&#x2F;A-Tis...</a> and <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosone&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;journal.pone.0047722" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosone&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;journal...</a>, do seem to plausibly provide evidence that there are other mouth-colonizing bacteria which would perform the same function as S. Mutans when it comes to causing caries, such that fully eliminating S. Mutans probably wouldn&#x27;t eliminate caries entirely.<p>But, importantly, the citation in the McGill article doesn&#x27;t much support the original claim, and this citation chain could easily have bottomed out in a completely different set of results which didn&#x27;t happen to lend some (weak) evidentiary support to the high-level claim.<p>Also importantly, this article is committing the sin of figuring out some reasons why a treatment might not be perfectly effective in all cases, and implicitly deciding that justifies ignoring any non-total benefits (i.e. cases where S. Mutans would have been counterfactually responsible for causing caries, that could be prevented).  Questions that would have been appropriate, but were apparently uninteresting:<p>&quot;Does this intervention also happen to chase out other acid-producing bacteria that fulfill a similar ecological niche as S. Mutans?&quot;<p>&quot;What percentage of caries cases would be prevented by chasing out just S. Mutans with this intervention, while leaving other acid-producing bacteria untouched?&quot;<p>Likely this is because answers to those questions would not really have changed the bottom line.  That bottom line was written by the &quot;unanswered&quot; safety concerns (reasonable in the abstract, less obviously reasonable in this specific case).  All of the listed safety concerns have evidence pointing in various directions.  Very little of that evidence is listed, probably because it&#x27;s not in a format that&#x27;s legible to scientific institutions.  The article does note, earlier on, &quot;The toxicity of this Mutacin-1140 compound had not been tested. What would be the consequences of millions of bacteria in the mouth releasing this compound? The answer wasn’t clear, even though the archetypal compound in the family Mutacin-1140 belonged to was known to be very safe.&quot;  This is obviously relevant evidence about the safety of Mutacin-1140.  _How much_ evidence?  Unasked, unanswered.  (I have no idea how predictive the safety of other compounds in the same family is of another unstudied compound in that family, I&#x27;m not a biologist.  But this is not an _unanswerable_ question.)<p>(Marginal conflict of interest: I know the Lumina founder socially. I have no financial interest in that venture or any of his other ventures. I have not taken Lumina myself.)
> **comp_throw7**: &gt；事实上，在所有导致龋齿的细菌中，它只占不到2%<p>我在这里追踪了引用链。直接引用的文章（<a href=“https:”www.nature.com“articles”sj.bdj.2018.81“rel=”nofollow“>https:”www.mature.com“article”sj.bbj.2018.81</a>）如下：<p>；最近基于DNA和RNA的分子研究证实了这些龋齿生态概念，这些研究揭示了一个非常多样化的微生物生态系统，其中变形链球菌在龋齿过程中所涉及的细菌群落中只占很小一部分（0.1%-1.6%）。[20] &quot<p> 注意到&quot；与龋齿过程有关&quot；&quot；导致龋齿”<p> 引用链中的下一步是<a href=“https:”www.cell.com“趋势”微生物学“摘要”S0966-842X（14）00225-X“rel=”nofollow“>https:”&#x2F；www.cell.com；趋势；微生物学；抽象；S0966-842X</一p> &quot；近年来，第二代测序和宏基因组技术的使用揭示了一个非常多样化的生态系统，其中变形链球菌仅占牙菌斑细菌群落的0.1%，占龋齿病变的0.7-1.6%[14,15]&“<p> 现在，这种说法只是流行的说法之一<p> 引用链中的下一步，<a href=“https://karger.com,cre,文章摘要,47,6,591,85901,牙本质依赖性假牙”rel=“nofollow”>https://&#x2F；karger.com；cre；文章摘要；47°F；6*F；591；85901；这</a> 以及<a href=“https:&#x2F；journals.plos.org&#plosone&#x2M；文章？id=10.1371&#x2O；journal.pone.0047722”rel=“nofollow”>https:&#x2F；journalis.plos.org；plosone；文章？id＝10.1371；日记</a> ，似乎确实提供了证据，表明在引起龋齿方面，还有其他口腔定植细菌与变种链球菌具有相同的功能，因此完全消除变种链球菌可能会；不能完全消除龋齿<p> 但是，重要的是，McGill文章中的引用没有；不太支持最初的说法，而且这个引用链很容易在一组完全不同的结果中触底；对于这一高级别的索赔，我们不能提供一些（薄弱的）证据支持<p> 同样重要的是，这篇文章犯了一个错误，即找出治疗在所有情况下可能不是完全有效的一些原因，并隐含地决定忽略任何非完全益处是合理的（即变种链球菌对导致龋齿负有反事实责任的情况，这是可以预防的）。本应恰当但显然无趣的问题：<p>&quot；这种干预是否也恰好驱逐了其他与变种链球菌具有相似生态位的产酸细菌&“<p> &quot；通过这种干预措施只清除变异链球菌，而不接触其他产酸细菌，可以预防多大比例的龋齿病例&“<p> 这可能是因为这些问题的答案并没有真正改变底线。这一底线是由&quot；未答复&quot；安全问题（抽象上合理，在这种特定情况下不太明显合理）。所有列出的安全问题都有指向不同方向的证据。列出的证据很少，可能是因为；它的格式不是；对科学机构来说很容易辨认。文章在前面确实指出，&quot；这种Mutacin-1140化合物的毒性尚未经过测试。口腔中数以百万计的细菌释放这种化合物会有什么后果？答案尚不清楚，尽管已知Mutacin-1140家族中的原型化合物非常安全&“；这显然是关于Mutacin-1140安全性的相关证据_有多少证据？无人问，无人回答。（我不知道同一家族中其他化合物的安全性对该家族中另一种未研究的化合物的预测有多大，我不是生物学家。但这不是一个无法回答的问题。）<p>（边际利益冲突：我在社会上认识Lumina的创始人。我在那家企业或他的任何其他企业中都没有经济利益。我自己也没有服用Lumina。）
            
**m463**: The summary at the end is pretty overt, but I like it.
> **m463**: 最后的总结很明显，但我喜欢。
            
**AStonesThrow**: I&#x27;m unable to distinguish between this narrative and the premise of &quot;Jurassic Park&quot;
> **AStonesThrow**: 我；我无法区分这种叙述和&quot；侏罗纪公园&quot；
            
**ProAm**: From cavities no, but from tooth pain yes.  There are so many stories of suicide because the tooth pain was so bad they could not wait and endure it.
> **ProAm**: 不是因为蛀牙，而是因为牙痛。自杀的故事太多了，因为牙痛太严重了，他们迫不及待地忍受着。
            
**yosito**: I have a feeling that the people who would trust a product like Lumina are probably the same people who will never use flouride.
> **yosito**: 我有一种感觉，信任Lumina这样的产品的人可能是永远不会使用氟化物的人。