Paediatric reference intervals and curves for haemoglobin and ferritin: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reference intervals and reference curves provide clinicians with a point of reference when evaluating patients' laboratory test results. In practical applications, the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of healthy reference population are typically used as lower and upper reference limits. Guidelines outlining analytical and methodological steps involved in reference intervals and curves estimation are available and there have been large-scale world-wide initiatives to provide reference intervals and curves for children. However, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the results of such initiatives in general, but specifically in iron-related biomarkers, ferritin (in serum and plasma) and haemoglobin. Objectives of this review are to identify studies that have produced reference intervals and curves for ferritin and haemoglobin in paediatric populations and to synthesise all available evidence. We also aim to quantify heterogeneity across reference intervals and curves and identify and elucidate sources of heterogeneity, including heterogeneity in the methods employed in their development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a comprehensive search strategy, we will identify eligible studies. Following electronic databases will be searched from inception: EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and The Cochrane Library. We will also perform grey literature search to capture unpublished reference intervals and curves from healthy cohorts. Two researchers will independently screen retrieved citations against eligibility criteria in two stages, focusing first on titles and abstracts and then on full-text articles. Studies that provide reference intervals and curves for ferritin and haemoglobin for paediatric population will be eligible. Data extraction will include study characteristics, characteristics of reference population, methodological and analytical considerations and estimated reference intervals and curves. We will consider narrative synthesis and quantitative synthesis when appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as data from already published studies will be used. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023399802.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".