MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200464463 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055318

Association between auditory system pathology and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): a systematic review

2021· review· en· W4200464463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katrine Dahl, Mads Andersen, Tine Brink Henriksen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden infant death syndromeEpidemiologyAssociation (psychology)PathologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A theory has emerged, suggesting that abnormalities in the auditory system may be associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). However, current clinical evidence has never been systematically reviewed. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted according to the guideline of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched through 7 September 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Only human studies with a reference group were included. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they examined infants exposed to otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), auditory brainstem response (ABR) or had autopsies with brainstem histology of the auditory system. SIDS was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcome was near-miss sudden infant death syndrome episodes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias, and the quality of evidence. Due to high heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: Twelve case-control studies were included. Seven studies on OAEs or ABR had a high degree of inconsistency. Contrarily, four out of five studies reporting on brainstem histology found that auditory brainstem abnormalities were more prevalent in SIDS cases than in controls. However, the quality of evidence across all studies was very low. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found no clear association between auditory system pathology and SIDS. The higher prevalence of histological abnormalities in the auditory system of SIDS may indicate an association. However, further studies of higher quality and larger study populations are needed to determine whether these findings are valid. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020208045.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→