MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397007674 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2024.895

Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus

2024· article· en· W4397007674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CADTH

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsCytomegalovirusMedicineVirologyCytomegalovirus infectionsPediatricsHuman cytomegalovirusVirusHerpesviridaeViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What Is the Issue? Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is estimated to affect between 0.2% and 2.4% of newborns worldwide, and may cause long-term effects, including hearing loss and neurodevelopmental disability. Newborn screening for cCMV can identify affected neonates and provide an opportunity for early treatment, which may reduce any long-term effects from infection. We wanted to know if universal newborn screening is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for identifying and managing cCMV. What Did We Do? We identified and summarized published literature comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal newborn screening with either targeted newborn screening or no screening for congenital cytomegalovirus in neonates. We also identified and summarized published, evidence-based guidelines that make recommendations concerning the use of newborn screening for congenital cytomegalovirus to help inform decisions considering the use of this intervention. An information specialist searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature sources published between January 1, 2014, and March 19, 2024. The search was limited to English-language documents. One reviewer screened articles for eligibility based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. What Did We Find? Evidence from 1 prospective cohort study in the US found that, compared to universal newborn screening for cCMV, targeted newborn screening failed to identify a significant proportion of neonates who developed hearing loss associated with infection. Three cost-effectiveness evaluations concluded that universal newborn screening for cCMV was cost-effective when compared to targeted newborn screening or no screening. None of these analyses were specific to the Canadian context. While 1 of 3 evidence-based guidelines identified by this review makes a recommendation favouring universal newborn screening for cCMV, 2 evidence-based guidelines recommend against the implementation of universal newborn screening for cCMV (including 1 from the Canadian context), generally citing a lack of sufficient clinical evidence. What Does This Mean? The included cost-effectiveness studies and evidence-based guidelines in this report emphasize that limited clinical evidence is currently available to inform decision-making concerning newborn screening for cCMV. Jurisdictions where universal newborn screening for cCMV has been implemented provide an opportunity for clinical research to support and inform future decision-making. The current limitation of available clinical data describing newborn screening for cCMV will require decision-makers to draw from a broader set of inputs and sources than those available from empirical 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207