MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4236253659 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-24100/v1

Prevalence and determinants of anemia among women of reproductive age in developing countries of Asia and Africa: A systematic review protocol

2020· review· en· W4236253659 on OpenAlexaff
Savera Savera, Sumera Aziz Ali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Developing countryAnemiaMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthGeographyEconomicsAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The burden of anemia among women of reproductive age (WRA) is significantly higher in developing countries. Studies have been conducted to estimate the prevalence and magnitude of anemia among women of reproductive age and its associated factors mainly in African and Asian countries. However, findings from the existing literature are not synthesized in a systematic way to make evidence-based decisions. Given the high burden of anemia in Asian and African countries and an enormous amount of literature on the prevalence and determinants of anemia, there is a need to undertake a systematic review on prevalence and determinants of anemia among WRA in developing countries of Asia and Africa. Hence, the objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review on the prevalence and determinants of anemia among WRA in developing countries of Asia and Africa. This synthesis of literature will help to understand the determinants of anemia to design targeted and context-based interventions primarily for WRA. In addition, this systematic review will also assist policymakers, stakeholders and managers to make informed and evidence-based decisions mainly in developing countries of Asia and Africa.Methods The review will focus on assessing the burden of anemia and its determinants in the developing countries of Asia and Africa. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Science Direct, Medline and Cochrane will be explored using a detailed search strategy. A study will be considered eligible, if it will be a primary epidemiological research conducted through quantitative observational study designs (cross-sectional, case-control or cohort studies) on prevalence and determinants or only determinants of anemia among WRA (15-49 years) in the developing country of Africa or Asia and published in the English language in a peer-reviewed local or international journal from 2000 to 2020.Discussion This systematic review will provide an opportunity to critically appraise and synthesize the findings from individual studies on the prevalence and determinants of anemia to finally generate a summary. These aggregated findings, in turn, can guide practice and inform policymakers to make evidence-based decisions to address the problem of anemia among women of reproductive age. The results of the review will be disseminated through presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.013
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIron Metabolism and Disorders→French-language works237,207→