MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neck circumference in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3122419540 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMeta-analysisPopulationAnthropometryDemographyMedicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> High neck circumference (NC) is associated with high burden diseases in Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC). NC complements established anthropometric measurements for early identification of cardio-metabolic and other illnesses. However, evidence about NC has not been systematically studied in LAC. We aimed to estimate the mean NC and the prevalence of high NC in LAC. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and LILACS. Search results were screened and studied by two reviewers independently. To assess risk of bias of individual studies, we used the Hoy <ns4:italic>et al.</ns4:italic> scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> In total, 182 abstracts were screened, 96 manuscripts were reviewed and 85 studies (n= 51,978) were summarized. From all the summarized studies, 14 were conducted in a sample of the general population, 23 were conducted with captive populations and 49 studies were conducted with patients. The pooled mean NC in the general population was 35.69 cm (95% IC: 34.85cm-36.53cm; I²: 99.6%). In our patient populations, the pooled mean NC in the obesity group was 42.56cm (95% CI 41.70cm-43.42cm; I²: 92.40%). Across all studied populations, there were several definitions of high NC; thus, prevalence estimates were not comparable. The prevalence of high NC ranged between 37.00% and 57.69% in the general population. The methodology to measure NC was not consistently reported. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Mean NC in LAC appears to be in the range of estimates from other world regions. Inconsistent methods and definitions hamper cross-country comparisons and time trend analyses. There is a need for consistent and comparable definitions of NC so that it can be incorporated as a standard anthropometric indicator in surveys and epidemiological studies. </ns4:p>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.396
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.100 · 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