MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389047731 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13797.1

Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes in children up to 1 year of age? A scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4389047731 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Matvienko‐Sikar, Linda S. Adair, Lucinda Bell, Catherine S. Birken, Vicki Brown, Darren Dahly, Ann Sinéad Doherty, Rebecca K. Golley, Patricia Leahy‐Warren, Marian McBride, Elizabeth McCarthy, Andrew W. Murphy, Sarah Redsell, Caroline B. Terwee

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilHealth Research Board
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePsychological interventionMEDLINEChildhood obesityData extractionProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)PediatricsMeta-analysisObesityAlternative medicinePsychiatryOverweightPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> 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 <ns3:bold> <ns3:italic>what</ns3:italic> </ns3:bold> to measure; determining <ns3:bold>how</ns3:bold> 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. </ns3:p>

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.814
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.153 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207