MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306406441 · doi:10.1111/jpc.16244

The association between congenital cytomegalovirus infection and cerebral palsy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4306406441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leong Tung Ong, Si Wei David Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral palsyMeta-analysisCytomegalovirusPediatricsConfidence intervalStudy heterogeneityHuman cytomegalovirusSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineImmunologyViral diseaseHerpesviridaeVirusPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common cause of congenital infection, affecting 1% of all live births. Intrauterine infection such as CMV infection is a risk factor for developing cerebral palsy. This study aims to investigate the association between congenital CMV infection and the development of cerebral palsy. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Ovid SP to identify relevant studies. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled prevalence. The generic inverse variance method was used for statistical analysis. A total of 12 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of cerebral palsy among patients diagnosed with congenital CMV infection was 26% (95% confidence interval (CI), 13-40%). The overall pooled prevalence of congenital CMV infection among patients with cerebral palsy was 10.9% (95% CI, 5-16%). Congenital CMV infection was significantly associated with the development of cerebral palsy in children. Routine follow-ups should be offered to screen for cerebral palsy.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.023
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Paediatrics and Child HealthSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207