MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400890717 · doi:10.3389/fped.2024.1413113

The case of the neonate vs. LMIC medical academia—a jury-style systematic review of 32 years of literature without significant mortality reduction

2024· review· en· W4400890717 on OpenAlexaff
Hippolite O. Amadi, Ifeoluwa O. Abioye, Ukadike C. Ugbolue, Rhoda-Dara Ekpenyong, Nnamdi F. Ekwem, Ogechi J. Nwaneri, Chidiebere Dike

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersImperial College London
KeywordsMedicineJuryReduction (mathematics)Style (visual arts)PediatricsIntensive care medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The high neonatal mortality rate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Nigeria has lasted for more than 30 years to date with associated nursing fatigue. Despite prominent hard work, technological improvements, and many publications released from the country since 1990, the problem has persisted, perhaps due to a lack of intervention scale-up. Could there be neglected discoveries unwittingly abandoned by Nigerian policymakers over the years, perhaps locked up in previous publications? A careful review may reveal these insights to alert policymakers, inspire researchers, and refocus in-country research efforts towards impactful directions for improving neonatal survival rates. The focus was to determine the prevailed effectiveness of LMIC medical academia in creating solutions to end the high neonatal mortality rate. Methods: An unconventional systematic review protocol structure following the PRISMA 2020 checklist was designed and registered at INPLASY (registration number: INPLASY202380096, doi: 10.37766/inplasy2023.8.0096). A jury of paediatricians was assembled and observed by a team of legal professionals. The jury searched the literature from 1990 to the end of 2022, extracted newborn-related articles about Nigeria, and assessed and debated them against expected criteria for solution creation, translation, scale-up, sustainability, and national coverage. Each juror used preset criteria to produce a verdict on the possibility of a published novel idea being a potential game-changer for improving the survival rate of Nigerian neonates. Results: A summation of the results showed that 19 out of 4,286 publications were assessed to possess potential strategies or interventions to reduce neonatal mortality. Fourteen were fully developed but not appropriately scaled up across the country, hence denying neonates proper access to these interventions. Conclusion: Nigeria may already have the required game-changing ideas to strategically scale up across the nation to accelerate neonatal survival. Therefore, LMIC healthcare systems may have to look inward to strengthen what they already possess. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier (INPLASY202380096).

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207