Risk factors for hearing loss in children: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss in newborns and children is a public health concern, due to high prevalence and negative effects on their development. Early detection and intervention of childhood hearing loss may mitigate these negative effects. Population-based newborn hearing screening programs have been established worldwide to identify children at risk for congenital hearing loss and to follow children at risk for late onset or progressive hearing loss. This article presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to review the risk factors associated with permanent hearing loss in children, including congenital, early, or late onset. Risk factors associated with progressive hearing loss will be investigated as a secondary aim. METHODS: Scientific literature from the following databases will be investigated: MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, and CINAHL. The primary outcome is a permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss with congenital onset or onset during childhood (birth to 18 years). The secondary outcome is progressive hearing loss. Studies must report data on risk factors associated with permanent hearing loss; risk factors may be present at birth or later and result in immediate or delayed hearing loss. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, nonrandomized comparative and non-comparative studies, and case series will be included. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Qualitative Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (McMaster University). If aggregation of data is possible for a subsection of studies, we will pool data using meta-analysis techniques. If aggregation of data is not possible, a qualitative synthesis will be presented. We will assess the quality and strength of the overall body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. DISCUSSION: The resulting information will inform the update of a provincial audiological surveillance protocol for the Ontario Infant Hearing Program and will be applicable to early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) programs worldwide. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: We have registered the protocol in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018104121.
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 | 0.058 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.006 |
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".