Association between prenatal Zika virus exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy has been associated with adverse birth outcomes, including congenital Zika syndrome, characterised by features such as microcephaly. However, the broader neurodevelopmental influence of prenatal ZIKV exposure, especially among offspring without congenital anomalies at birth, remains poorly understood. While previous studies, including a review, have explored neurodevelopment in ZIKV-exposed children, comparative pooled estimates between exposed and unexposed groups remain scarce. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the association between prenatal ZIKV exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring without congenital anomalies at birth, using data from observational studies with defined control groups. Methods and analysis We will systematically search multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, alongside grey literature sources such as Google Scholar and conference proceedings. Eligible studies will include observational designs (cohort and case-control) comparing neurodevelopmental outcomes between children with and without prenatal ZIKV exposure. Primary outcomes will include gross motor, fine motor, communication, problem-solving, social-emotional and cognitive development assessed with validated tools. Three reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate, with heterogeneity assessed using the I ² statistic and further explored through subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required, as the study involves secondary analysis of publicly available data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO registration number CRD420251011184.
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 | 0.088 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.005 |
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".