MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4309592811 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062452

An investigation of cultural influences in survivors of paediatric cancer: a systematic review protocol

2022· review· en· W4309592811 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharon Hou, Fiona Schulte

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineMEDLINEChecklistSystematic reviewProtocol (science)Cochrane LibraryData extractionPopulationEthnic groupPediatric cancerFamily medicineCultural diversityClinical psychologyCancerAlternative medicinePsychologyPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric cancer affects children and families from diverse backgrounds. However, there is a limited understanding of how diversity/cultural factors play a role, especially in survivorship. This protocol outlines a systematic review on the cultural influences in survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines checklist and is registered with PROSPERO. EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO are searched. Eligibility criteria include original research studies published in English, and an assessment of culture on survivors of childhood cancer. Search terms are developed with a medical librarian. Primary objective will be to describe culture (ethnic and population groups, migration status, acculturation, cultural characteristics) in survivors of paediatric cancer and study characteristics and methods. Secondary objective will be to identify the role of culture in outcomes of survivors of paediatric cancer. Data extraction will include participant characteristics such as the number of participants and/or controls, sex, age at diagnosis. Extraction will also include analytical approaches, type of cultural variables (predictor, moderator, mediator, outcome) and effect measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this systematic review. Results from this systematic review will be disseminated in line with PRISMA guidelines through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Findings will also be shared with our target communities, including survivors of childhood cancer and their families, through the creation of lay summaries and/or educational workshops in the community. Knowledge gathered from this review may help to identify gaps in knowledge and directions for future research. They may also inform the development of clinical recommendations for healthcare providers of survivors of childhood cancer. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021234101.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.012

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→