Prevalence of oculomotor, binocular vision anomalies and refractive error among children with cerebral palsy in WHO South-East Asia: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Children with cerebral palsy (CP) may experience a variety of visual abnormalities, which might hamper their daily activities. Most physical therapy for the CP population focuses on visual aspects, which postpone rehabilitation outcomes. Considering the significance of vision to the CP community, we aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of ocular abnormalities such as oculomotor abnormalities, refractive errors, and binocular vision anomalies in children with Cerebral palsy in the absence of eye injury in WHO South-East Asia region. Methods & analysis: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol are reported as per the PRISMA- P and MOOSE guidelines. A complete search strategy will be framed using MeSH terms and the opinion of the subject expert. A detailed search on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and CINHAL will be carried out to retract the data on the prevalence of visual problems in the CP population (age< 18 years), published in English between January 2010 and 2024. Covidence software will be used to manage data, screen records and extract the information. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to evaluate the listed studies quality and risk of bias. RevMan V.5 will be used to analyse the data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it