MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4319787687 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064307

Levels of immunoglobulin isotypes in serum and respiratory samples of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4319787687 on OpenAlexafffund
Dana Unninayar, Beverley Shea, D. William Cameron, Juthaporn Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineCOPDExacerbationInternal medicineMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)ImmunologySystematic reviewBronchoalveolar lavageSputumIntensive care medicineMEDLINELungPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an inflammatory respiratory disorder characterised by the progressive worsening of lung function. Acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is a leading contributor to patient morbidity, mortality and hospitalisations. The clinical significance of immunoglobulin (Ig) levels in COPD patients is not well established and is in need of further investigation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to describe levels of different Ig isotypes (IgG, IgA and IgM) in various samples (serum, sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage) of patients with COPD. IgE levels in COPD patients have been researched and reviewed extensively and hence will be excluded from this review. IgD levels will also be excluded from the review as there is a paucity of data on IgD levels in COPD patients. The primary outcome of interest in this systematic review is assessing Ig isotype levels in patients with COPD. Secondary outcomes that will be assessed include the differences between Ig isotype levels in COPD patients compared with healthy controls, as well as the relationships between Ig isotype levels and key clinical variables, including COPD severity, incidence of AECOPD and AECOPD severity. Embase and Ovid MEDLINE will be used to search for non-randomised studies published from 1946 to October 2022 that report our prespecified primary and secondary outcomes. As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol, retrieved studies will undergo a two-phase screening process conducted by two independent reviewers. Prespecified primary and secondary outcomes will be extracted from eligible studies, and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse extracted outcomes. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and other formats including conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020192220.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.030
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→