Systematic review protocol examining sex differences in survival among low birthweight newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In sub-Saharan African countries, low birthweight (LBW) accounts for three-quarters of under-five mortality and morbidity. However, there is no systematic evidence of sex differences in LBW survival risk. The aim of this protocol is to outline the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather qualitative and quantitative data on sex differences in survival among LBW newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols reporting guidelines. We will conduct a systematic review to retrieve all qualitative and quantitative studies. Electronic search strategies are being finalised on 24 February 2020 for Ovid Medline and EMBASE, and on 28 February 2020 for CINAHL, Scopus and Global Health in collaboration with a Health Sciences librarian. The primary outcome of interest is indicating sex differences in survival among LBW newborns and infants. Secondary outcomes are sex-disaggregated differences in morbidity among LBW newborns and infants. Screening, data extraction and assessments of risk of bias will be performed independently. Narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis will be conducted with studies that are compatible based on population and outcome. The systematic review is focused on the analysis of secondary data and does not require ethics approval. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As it will be a systematic review, without human participants' involvement, there will be no requirement for ethical approval. The systematic review will present key evidence of sex-disaggregated differences in mortality and morbidity among LBW newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa. Programme managers, policy-makers and researchers can use the findings to evaluate LBW health outcomes in different sexes. The final manuscript will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020163470.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".