Systematic review and meta-analysis of global birth prevalence of clubfoot: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Clubfoot is a common congenital birth defect, with an average prevalence of approximately 1 per 1000 live births, although this rate is reported to vary among different countries around the world. If it remains untreated, clubfoot causes permanent disability, limits educational and employment opportunities, and personal growth. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the global birth prevalence of congenital clubfoot. Methods and analysis Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Global Health, Latin American & Caribben Health Science Literature (LILACS), Maternity and Infant Care, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar will be searched for observational studies based on predefined criteria and only in English language from inception of database in 1946 to 10 November 2017. A standard data extraction form will be used to extract relevant information from included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal checklist will be used to assess the overall quality of studies reporting prevalence. All included studies will be assessed for risk of bias using a tool developed specifically for prevalence studies. Forest plots will be created to understand the overall random effects of pooled estimates with 95% CIs. An I2test will be done for heterogeneity of the results (P>0.05), and to identify the source of heterogeneity across studies, subgroup or meta-regression will be used to assess the contribution of each variable to the overall heterogeneity. A funnel plot will be used to identify reporting bias, and sensitivity analysis will be used to assess the impact of methodological quality, study design, sample size and the impact of missing data. Ethics and dissemination This review will be conducted completely based on published data, so approval from an ethics committee or written consent will not be required. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and relevant conference presentations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016041922 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".