MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160956157 · doi:10.12688/gatesopenres.13246.1

Interventions to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born moderate to late preterm: a systematic review protocol

2021· review· en· W3160956157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josephine Agyeman-Duah, Stephen Kennedy, Frances O’Brien, Giancarlo Natalucci

Bibliographic record

VenueGates Open Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionPremature birthPediatricsMedicineObstetricsPregnancyGestationBiologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prematurity (birth before 37 +0 weeks’ gestation) is associated with wide-ranging neurodevelopmental impairment. Prognosis among moderate to late (32 +0 to <37 +0 weeks’ gestation) preterm infants (MLPT) is better compared to their counterparts born very preterm (<32 +0 weeks’ gestation). However the risk of developmental impairment among MLPT, who make up about 84% of all preterm infants, is 2-3 times higher when compared to infants born at term. Early interventions have aimed to improve outcomes in preterm infants generally, but there are limited data on their need and effect in MLPT specifically. Prioritising research, long-term follow-up and early interventions targeted at ameliorating the impact of preterm birth among MLPT is required. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the type of early childhood interventions (from birth until 4 years of age) offered to MLPT children and to evaluate their impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes (cognitive, neurobehavioural and motor) as assessed in these children during childhood (until 18 years of age). Methods and analysis: A systematic literature search in Web of Science, Medline Ovid, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE will be conducted. Data on MLPT children receiving developmental interventions until the age of 4 years will be evaluated. Interventions may involve parents or primary caregivers. Primary outcomes are cognitive, neurobehavioural and motor development as measured from birth until the age of 18 years. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review and will be graded as low, high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of non-RCTs will be evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Approach. Publication and reporting bias will be assessed using Egger’s test and funnel plots respectively.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGates Open ResearchSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207