MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037816472 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036645

Systematic review protocol examining sex differences in survival among low birthweight newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa

2020· article· en· W3037816472 on OpenAlexaff
Akalewold T. Gebremeskel, Arone Wondwossen Fantaye, Lena Faust, Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLScopusMEDLINESystematic reviewPopulationProtocol (science)Family medicineData extractionPediatricsLow birth weightEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPregnancyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.014
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.013

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207