Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes in children up to 1 year of age? A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background How, what, and when infants are fed plays a role in the aetiology of childhood obesity. Heterogeneity in how infant feeding outcomes are measured in trials of interventions to prevent childhood obesity limits evidence syntheses and understanding of intervention effectiveness. An infant feeding core outcome set (COS) was previously developed to standardised outcome measurement and reporting. The COS represents what to measure; determining how best to measure these outcomes is the next essential step to improve intervention evaluations. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to identify what outcome measurement instruments have been used in trials, and how they have been used, to measure the core infant feeding outcomes. Methods A scoping review will be conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey and GreyNet will be searched from inception. Papers are eligible for inclusion if they report trials involving primary data collection that measure and report at least one core infant feeding outcome in infants ≤one year of age. Following searching and screening, eligible studies will be categorised into the following four overarching categories for data extraction, synthesis and write-up: caregiver-related outcomes; diet-related outcomes; feeding environment outcomes; child weight outcomes. Data will be narratively described and presented in tabular format, with findings presented in four separate review papers delineated by the four overarching categories. Discussion This scoping review forms part of the Standardised measurement for Childhood Obesity Prevention (SCOPE) study (www.eiascope.com). Evidence from this scoping review on what measurement instruments are used, and how they are used, represents an essential first step in developing recommendations and guidance about how best to measure core infant feeding outcomes for childhood obesity prevention. This can improve evidence syntheses and understanding of what infant feeding interventions are most effective for childhood obesity prevention.
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 | 0.155 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.014 |
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".