MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902821996 · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0885-4

Screening for small for gestational age using third-trimester ultrasound markers: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of screening test accuracy

2018· review· en· W2902821996 on OpenAlexafffund
Cédric Gasse, Kim Paquette, Suzanne Demers, Stéphanie Roberge, Emmanuel Bujold, Amélie Boutin

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsUniversité Laval
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageCochrane LibraryPopulationMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a complication of pregnancy associated with major neonatal morbidity and commonly diagnosed at birth based on birth weight below the 5th or the 10th centile. There is no consensus on the use of routine third-trimester ultrasound for the detection of FGR in a general population. This systematic review aims to estimate the performance of third-trimester ultrasound markers in the screening for babies who are small for gestational age in low-risk or general population. METHODS: A systematic review of screening test accuracy will be conducted. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be searched from their inception until December 2017, as well as reference lists of included studies and previous related review articles. Studies screening for FGR in a low-risk or general population using third-trimester ultrasound markers and reporting low birth weight for gestational age (small for gestational age at birth) as a reference will be eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen references for inclusion, assess the risk of bias, and extract data. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study 2 (QUADAS-2) tool will be used to assess the methodological quality and validity of individual studies. The hierarchal summary receiver operating characteristic and random effects hierarchal bivariate models (Bivariate) will be used to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of each ultrasound marker and to compare the discriminative ability of the different ultrasound markers. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore the heterogeneity between studies and to assess the effect of screening tests' characteristics (e.g., timing) on their discriminative ability. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will determine the relevance of routine third-trimester ultrasound markers in the screening for FGR in low-risk or general population and their usefulness in standard pregnancy care. Additionally, this knowledge synthesis represents a step in the optimization of the discriminative ability of third-trimester ultrasound and predictive tools, allowing for targeted interventions aiming at the reduction of FGR complications and ultimately improving infants' health. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered at PROSPERO: international prospective register of systematic reviews. The register number is CRD42018085564 .

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)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.035
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.005

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.059 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207