Association between ovalocytosis and Plasmodium infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reports of an association between ovalocytosis and protection against Plasmodium infection are inconsistent. Therefore, we aimed to synthesise the overall evidence of the association between ovalocytosis and malaria infection using a meta-analysis approach. The systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023393778). A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, and ProQuest databases, from inception to 30 December 2022, was performed to retrieve studies documenting the association between ovalocytosis and Plasmodium infection. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Data synthesis included a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis to calculate the pooled effect estimate (log odds ratios [ORs]) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Our database search retrieved 905 articles, 16 of which were included for data synthesis. Qualitative synthesis revealed that over half of the studies showed no association between ovalocytosis and malaria infections or severity. Furthermore, our meta-analysis demonstrated no association between ovalocytosis and Plasmodium infection (P = 0.81, log OR = 0.06, 95% CI − 0.44 to 0.19, I2: 86.20%; 11 studies). In conclusion, the meta-analysis results demonstrated no association between ovalocytosis and Plasmodium infection. Hence, the role of ovalocytosis in relation to protection against Plasmodium infection or disease severity should be further investigated in larger prospective studies.
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 | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".