MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979535848 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027384

Transition in acquired brain injury youth (TrABI-Y): a systematic literature review protocol

2019· article· en· W2979535848 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Gauvin‐Lepage, Julie Farthing, Shana Bissonnette, Louise Koclas, Magdalena Jaworski, Josée Larochelle, Anne-Sophie St-Pierre-Clément

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicineMEDLINECritical appraisalSystematic reviewPopulationAcquired brain injuryIntervention (counseling)Health careProtocol (science)Psychological interventionFamily medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicinePhysical therapyEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Acquired brain injury (ABI) in paediatrics refers to children born with a neurological deficit, which will lead to a chronic neurological disorder. As advances in medical paediatric health progress, we are seeing these ABI youth transitioning into adult healthcare services while also going through different life events. Despite the growing number of young adult patients, access to transition programmes to facilitate the transition process is still limited and evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes is inconclusive. The purpose of this paper is to provide the protocol for an upcoming systematic literature review on this important issue. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The start of this systematic literature review is planned for 1 October 2019 and will end on 31 December 2021. According to the PICO framework developed, the Population and the Problem of interest (P) will include children, adolescents and young adults (0-18 years) diagnosed with ABI. The selected articles will have to involve an Intervention (I) relating to the healthcare of this population or life transitions from paediatric to adult-oriented care. Studies will be included if a Comparator (C) intervention was used. The expected Outcomes (O) will have to report quantitative or qualitative health-related outcomes post-transition. This comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature will include articles published between 2010 and 2020. The databases to be searched include Medline, All EBM Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The selected articles will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A synthesis of the findings will be drafted to identify the effectiveness of available transition programmes as well as predictors, factors and determinants involved in the transition process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project is not associated with direct individuals. The dissemination plan includes strategies such as using this systematic literature review to develop a research project on transition that will be published.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.013
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.010

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare→French-language works237,207→