MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211098652 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055210

Antimicrobial-associated organ injury among the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2022· review· en· W4211098652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tichawona Chinzowu, Sandipan Roy, Prasad S. Nishtala

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Bath
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINESystematic reviewMeta-analysisGeriatricsProtocol (science)PopulationFamily medicineCohort studyPublication biasFunnel plotGerontologyCohortAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Older adults (aged 65 years and above) constitute the fastest growing population cohort in the western world. There is increasing evidence that the burden of infections disproportionately affects this cohort of older adults and hence this vulnerable population is frequently exposed to antimicrobials. There is currently no systematic review summarising the evidence for risk of organ injury following antimicrobial exposure among older adults. This protocol will outline how we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine the relationship between antimicrobial exposure and organ injury in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for PsycINFO, PubMed and EMBASE databases for relevant articles using MeSH terms where applicable. After removing duplicates, articles will be screened for inclusion into or exclusion from the study by two reviewers. Title and abstract screening will be done first, followed by full-text screening. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale will be used to assess the risk of bias for cohort and case control studies, and the Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool will be used for randomised control trials. We will explore the potential sources of heterogeneity and bias using funnel and forest plots of the included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: During the conduct of the review, ethical principles will be observed to ensure integrity. Any potential conflicts of interests will be declared, all contributors acknowledged and no plagiarised material will be included in the review.The systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in geriatrics. The findings will also be presented at international conferences in geriatrics or pharmacoepidemiology. The results will be communicated to patient and public engagement networks supported by the NHS Research and Development. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol is registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42020152621).

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.019
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.011

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207