Understanding the relation between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and adverse fetal, infant and child outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of longitudinal studies of pregnant women and their infants and children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy is a known cause of microcephaly and other congenital and developmental anomalies. In the absence of a ZIKV vaccine or prophylactics, principal investigators (PIs) and international leaders in ZIKV research have formed the ZIKV Individual Participant Data (IPD) Consortium to identify, collect and synthesise IPD from longitudinal studies of pregnant women that measure ZIKV infection during pregnancy and fetal, infant or child outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify eligible studies through the ZIKV IPD Consortium membership and a systematic review and invite study PIs to participate in the IPD meta-analysis (IPD-MA). We will use the combined dataset to estimate the relative and absolute risk of congenital Zika syndrome (CZS), including microcephaly and late symptomatic congenital infections; identify and explore sources of heterogeneity in those estimates and develop and validate a risk prediction model to identify the pregnancies at the highest risk of CZS or adverse developmental outcomes. The variable accuracy of diagnostic assays and differences in exposure and outcome definitions means that included studies will have a higher level of systematic variability, a component of measurement error, than an IPD-MA of studies of an established pathogen. We will use expert testimony, existing internal and external diagnostic accuracy validation studies and laboratory external quality assessments to inform the distribution of measurement error in our models. We will apply both Bayesian and frequentist methods to directly account for these and other sources of uncertainty. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The IPD-MA was deemed exempt from ethical review. We will convene a group of patient advocates to evaluate the ethical implications and utility of the risk stratification tool. Findings from these analyses will be shared via national and international conferences and through publication in open access, peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42017068915).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".