MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386800028 · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.09.013

Isolated choroid plexus cysts and health and developmental outcomes in childhood and adolescence – A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4386800028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kusum Singal, Krzysztof Adamczyk, Lisa Hurt, Andrea Woolner, Shantini Paranjothy

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChoroid plexusMEDLINEPediatricsInclusion (mineral)Internal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Choroid plexus cysts (CPCs) are incidental findings on ultrasound examination of the fetal brain. It is not known if isolated CPCs are associated with any adverse health or neurodevelopmental outcomes during the life course. This systematic review aimed to collate and synthesize the evidence on whether or not isolated choroid plexus cysts are associated with an increased risk of adverse health or developmental outcomes during childhood and adolescence. METHODS: A search strategy was developed specifically for this study and applied to four electronic databases Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Studies were assessed and selected for inclusion if there was a measurement of CPC (including single or multiple; unilateral or bilateral; isolated or presenting alongside other markers) during the antenatal or early neonatal period (<7 days) with follow-up of children and adolescents for health and developmental outcomes measured at any time from age 1 month onwards. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Due to heterogeneity in the types of outcome measures included and the timing of measurement of outcomes across the studies, it was not possible to pool data across studies and a narrative description of findings was presented. RESULTS: Eight studies (three cohorts and five case series) met the inclusion criteria. Different methods were used for outcome assessment, such as in-person assessment, parent questionnaires, medical records, and telephone interviews with parents. Six studies measured outcomes only once during the specified duration of follow-up; two studies carried out paediatric reviews of the children several times during follow-up. There were no differences in developmental outcomes or physical health between babies with CPCs reported in the three cohort studies, and no abnormalities were detected in the children that were followed up in four of the five case series studies. Most of the included studies were graded as low quality due to the small sample size, high risk of selection bias, unclear definitions of CPC or lack of a comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: The studies conducted to date do not provide evidence of adverse physical health outcomes or neurodevelopmental delays in babies with CPCs. However, most of these studies were small and included a narrow range of outcomes. Further research is needed to explore the relative incidence of outcomes such as ASD, ADHD, epilepsy and educational attainment in children with CPCs.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive BiologySame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207