Use of antioxidants supplementation on developmental outcomes in children with Down syndrome—A systematic review and meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The background of this study is to evaluate the published literature on the use of antioxidants in improving developmental outcomes in children with DS. Methods The systematic review included interventional studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and quasi‐RCTs [q‐RCTs]) of children aged 0 to 18 years diagnosed with DS who received antioxidants to improve developmental outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were interventional studies with non‐random allocation or lack of control group or non‐interventional studies including observational studies, systematic and narrative review articles, editorials and commentaries. Studies were also excluded if data from participants with DS were included as part of a larger group of participants (e.g., children with intellectual disability) and the data could not be separated for subgroup analysis, or if outcomes did not assess developmental domains (e.g., reported biochemical markers only). The review included children with other conditions associated with developmental disability, only when data for children with DS were separately reported. Results Eleven RCTs and q‐RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria with 683 participants with Down syndrome ranging in age from newborns to 17 years. Nine studies did not show any statistically significant clinical benefit of using antioxidants. Three studies were included in a meta‐analysis comparing changes in the effect sizes (post and pre‐intervention) in Global Developmental Quotient (GDQ) between the intervention and control groups. Conclusion This review concludes that it is likely that the results are valid and suggest that the use of Antioxidant has no improvement in GDQ for children with DS. It is also unclear if any benefit exists for other developmental domains.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".