“Average of neck circumference in Latin American adults: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Because these are inexpensive and (fairly) easy to conduct, anthropometric measurements have been widely used as risk factors for many diseases (e.g., cardiovascular or cancer). Recently, there have been several reports pinpointing the association between neck circumference and obstructive sleep apnea, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. These conditions are highly prevalent Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC), where they carry a large disease and disability burden. Neck circumference arises as a potential complement of established anthropometric measurements, namely weight, height and waist/hip circumference. However, unlike these well-known measurements, evidence about neck circumference is scarce and has not been systematically collected in LAC. Objective To summarize the average neck circumference in LAC adults; and, exploratorily, to summarize the prevalence of large neck circumference (i.e., neck/cervical obesity). Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis. We will conduct a search in OVID (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health) and LILACS. Search terms include those related to neck circumference, along with countries in LAC. We seek observational studies with a random sample of the general population, closed populations (e.g., workers), and patients; results will be presented for each of these groups. We will screen titles and abstracts; we will study in detail the selected papers. Both phases will be conducted by two reviewers independently. We will develop an extraction form to collate: country/year of data collection, methods of data collection, average neck circumference and, if available, prevalence of large neck circumference. Data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently. We will use the tool proposed by Hoy et al. and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the average neck circumference in LAC adults. Currently, evidence about neck circumference in LAC has not been systematically studied, appraised or summarized. This work will provide information about this novel anthropometric measurement, and spark attention about its role as a potential anthropometric indicator and health risk factor. Conflicts of interest All authors declare to have no conflicts of interest. Funding Rodrigo M Carrillo-Larco is supported by a Wellcome Trust International Training Fellowship (214185/Z/18/Z).
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 | 0.064 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.005 |
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".