MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889006978 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021893

Association between type 1 diabetes mellitus and educational attainment in childhood: a systematic review protocol

2018· review· en· W2889006978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Jayne Oakley, Dylan Kneale, Mala Mann, Mariann Hilliar, Jeanette Tan, Colin Dayan, John W Gregory, Robert M. French

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Diabetes mellitusAssociation (psychology)Type 1 diabetesEpidemiologyType 2 Diabetes MellitusEducational attainmentFamily medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes has the potential to significantly impact children's educational attainment. With the increase in incidence, quantifying this effect would be useful to assess how much additional support should be focused on children with type 1 diabetes in school. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of all observational studies and randomised controlled trials, including individuals both with and without a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes who have undertaken high stakes testing at the end of compulsory schooling when under 18 years of age. The search will cover both peer-reviewed and grey literature available from January 2004 to January 2018. The following seven databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to present), Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid EMBASE (1947 to present), Thomson Reuters Web of Science, EBSCO Education Resources Information Center, EBSCO British Education Index and EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Study selection and data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers with any disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The quality and risk of bias in the observational studies included in this review will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We aim to conduct a meta-analysis and will assess heterogeneity between the included studies and potential for publication bias if sufficient (>10) studies are included. RESULTS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as individual patient data will not be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017084078.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.015
Bibliometrics0.0180.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207