MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401452035 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078116

Centre-based childcare in early childhood and child obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2024· article· en· W4401452035 on OpenAlexafffund
Michaela Kucab, Charles Keown‐Stoneman, Catherine S. Birken, Michal Perlman, Janet Parsons, Jonathon L. Maguire

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineChildhood obesityProtocol (science)Meta-analysisObesityChild obesityPublic healthFamily medicinePediatricsAlternative medicineGerontologyNursingOverweightPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Centre-based childcare has been identified as a promising environment for obesity prevention in early childhood, but the longitudinal relationships between attending centre-based childcare and child obesity are not well understood. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the longitudinal associations between centre-based childcare attendance in early childhood and child body mass index compared with other childcare settings or parental care. Subgroup analyses will also be conducted to determine if socioeconomic factors and characteristics of the childcare setting modify the relationships. Methods Databases that will be searched include MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Database and Web of Science. Longitudinal prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, case–control studies and intervention trials conducted in middle-income and high-income countries will be included in the search strategy. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be conducted to explore factors that may modify the findings. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments will be conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposure tool. Meta-analysis will be conducted using random effects models to account for between-study variation. Heterogeneity across included studies will be estimated using the I 2 statistic. If meta-analysis is not possible, a narrative summary will be provided. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this study since no data will be collected. Findings aim to inform interventions and guide efforts in childcare settings to support optimal child growth. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Results may be of relevance for childcare and public health policy, researchers, parents and healthcare practitioners. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023436911.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.025
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.009

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→