Does obstructive sleep apnoea contribute to obesity, hypertension and kidney dysfunction in children? A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Childhood obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a highly prevalent disorder that may directly contribute to the development of obesity, hypertension and renal injury. Although those associations seem to be clearer in adults, studies in children have revealed conflicting results and updated synthesis of the evidence is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the available evidence on the effect of OSA on obesity, systemic blood pressure and kidney function, to help to elucidate whether respiratory interventions to correct OSA would have the potential to improve those outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review search was created by a medical librarian and peer-reviewed by a second librarian prior to running. Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL via EbscoHOST, Wiley Cochrane Library and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global were searched on 25 February 2020. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers for inclusion, followed by full-text screening of relevant articles. Studies in children will be included if they report data on OSA and weight, systemic blood pressure or kidney parameters. The extracted data will be combined for analysis and the information subcategorised in groups based on outcome. Risk of bias will be determined using tools specific to study methodology and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will provide essential information for healthcare professionals to better understand the relationship between childhood OSA and changes in body mass index, systemic blood pressure and kidney function indicators. Our findings will be disseminated through conferences and publications. The results of this review may guide the initiation of new strategies and the development of future research studies. This research did not involve human subjects and therefore did not undergo research ethical review. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171186.
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 | 0.063 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.007 |
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".