MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388825886 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00009

Association of cesarean section delivery with childhood behavior: a systematic review protocol

2023· review· en· W4388825886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Andrée Grisbrook, Nicole Létourneau, Alix Hayden, Paul E. Ronksley

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLCritical appraisalObservational studyScopusMedicineMEDLINEGrading (engineering)Postpartum depressionProtocol (science)Family medicinePediatricsPsychologyPsychiatryPregnancyAlternative medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This review will evaluate the association between cesarean section delivery and child behavior problems. INTRODUCTION: Cesarean section (C-section) deliveries account for over 30% of deliveries in Canada and 21% of all births globally. Mode of delivery via C-section has been associated with altered maternal mental health in the postpartum period, and postpartum depression is linked to an increased risk of internalizing and externalizing behaviors in children. Given the high rates of C-section deliveries worldwide, it is important to determine how mode of delivery impacts child behavior. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will examine child behavior outcomes among preschool and school-aged children as determined by medical diagnosis or a standardized assessment tool. Multiple gestation pregnancies and pre-term delivery will be excluded. METHODS: A search will be conducted using APA PsycINFO (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus. This review will evaluate peer-reviewed primary observational research studies specifically looking at examining C-section delivery. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text studies to determine alignment with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be recorded using the standardized JBI data extraction tool and be presented using figures, tables, and a summary. Where feasible, we will conduct a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of suitable populations. Critical appraisal of studies will be performed for included studies. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022371294.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207