The Burden of Critical Illness in Hospitalized Children in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The majority of childhood deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many of these deaths are avoidable with basic critical care interventions. Quantifying the burden of pediatric critical illness in LMICs is essential for targeting interventions to reduce childhood mortality. Objective: To determine the burden of hospitalization and mortality associated with acute pediatric critical illness in LMICs through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Data Sources and Search Strategy: We will identify eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS using MeSH terms and keywords. Results will be limited to infants or children (ages >28 days to 12 years) hospitalized in LMICs and publications in English, Spanish, or French. Publications with non-original data (e.g., comments, editorials, letters, notes, conference materials) will be excluded. Study Selection: We will include observational studies published since January 1, 2005, that meet all eligibility criteria and for which a full text can be located. Data Extraction: Data extraction will include information related to study characteristics, hospital characteristics, underlying population characteristics, patient population characteristics, and outcomes. Data Synthesis: We will extract and report data on study, hospital, and patient characteristics; outcomes; and risk of bias. We will report the causes of admission and mortality by region, country income level, and age. We will report or calculate the case fatality rate (CFR) for each diagnosis when data allow. Conclusions: By understanding the burden of pediatric critical illness in LMICs, we can advocate for resources and inform resource allocation and investment decisions to improve the management and outcomes of children with acute pediatric critical illness in LMICs.
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 | 0.072 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 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".