MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385709187 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068626

Global environmental risk factors of schizophrenia: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

2023· article· en· W4385709187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seyyed Muhammad Mahdi Mahdavinoor, Aghil Mollaei, Sara Farhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOPublication biasMeta-analysisFunnel plotSystematic reviewProtocol (science)MEDLINESchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryFamily medicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Schizophrenia is a chronic, complex and severe psychiatric disorder affecting millions of people every year and inflicting different costs to the individual, family and community. A growing body of evidence has introduced several genetic and environmental factors and their interactions as aetiological factors of schizophrenia. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to present an updated representation of the global environmental risk factors of schizophrenia. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is developed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guideline. We will systematically search the databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Embase until 30 September 2022. We include Cohort studies that have reported one or more risk factors of schizophrenia. We will also search Google Scholar search engine and references lists of included articles. Extracting the relevant data and assessing the quality of the included studies will be independently performed by different authors of our team. The risk of bias for the included studies will be evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression or sensitivity analysis will be our solution to deal with heterogeneity between studies. We will use a funnel diagram as well as Begg and Egger tests to check for possible publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because there will be no primary data collection or human involvement. The results of this study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022359327.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.028
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.006

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→