Impact of electrolyte abnormalities and adverse outcomes in persons with eating disorders: A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrolytes (sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, phosphate) are required in specific amounts for proper functioning of the human body. Although the body has different organ systems, such as the kidneys, that regulate electrolyte levels in the blood, electrolyte abnormalities occur frequently in people with eating disorders. The objective of this review will be to examine the association between electrolyte imbalances and adverse outcomes in people with eating disorders. METHODS: A systematic review of studies on eating and electrolyte disorders shall be conducted. Electronic searches shall be done in the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases. Selected studies shall include randomized control trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials, and cross-sectional studies published in English or French. Quality appraisal of studies and a narrative synthesis of extracted data shall be conducted. DISCUSSION: This review will synthesize existing evidence on electrolyte abnormalities in people with eating disorders. It will identify the type of electrolyte imbalances, their impact, and outcomes in people with eating disorders. We anticipate that information that will be useful to policy makers and clinicians in designing better policies to prevent eating disorders and or manage people with eating disorders shall be elucidated in this study. DISSEMINATION: The final manuscript will be submitted for publication in a journal. REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number CRD42023477497.
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 | 0.056 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.007 |
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".