MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389398158 · doi:10.1183/16000617.0133-2023

Global birth prevalence of Robin sequence in live-born infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389398158 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Wright, Mario Cortina‐Borja, Rachel L Knowles, Don S. Urquhart

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Review · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDemographyStudy heterogeneityEthnic groupEpidemiologyMEDLINEIncidence (geometry)PediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robin sequence (RS), a congenital disorder of jaw maldevelopment and glossoptosis, poses a substantial healthcare burden and has long-term health implications if airway obstruction is suboptimally treated. This study describes the global birth prevalence of RS and investigates whether prevalence estimates differ by geographical location, ethnicity or study data source (registry versus non-registry data). The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO. Databases were searched using keywords and subject terms for “Robin sequence”, “epidemiology”, “incidence” and “birth prevalence”. Meta-analysis was performed fitting random effects models with arcsine transformation. From 34 eligible studies (n=2722 RS cases), pooled birth prevalence was 9.5 per 100 000 live births (95% CI 7.1–12.1) with statistical heterogeneity. One third of studies provided a case definition for RS and numerous definitions were used. A total of 22 countries were represented, predominantly from European populations (53% of studies). There was a trend towards higher birth prevalence in European populations and lower prevalence from registry-based studies. Only two studies reported ethnicity. This study indicates that RS occurs globally. To investigate geographical differences in prevalence, additional studies from non-European populations and reporting of ethnicity are needed. Heterogeneity of estimates may be due to variable diagnostic criteria and ascertainment methods. Recently published consensus diagnostic criteria may reduce heterogeneity among future studies.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.028
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory ReviewSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207