MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414915088 · doi:10.20473/mgi.v20i3.234-244

ZINC STATUS IN CHILDREN WITH ALLERGIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2025· review· en· W4414915088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahrah Hikmah, Anang Endaryanto

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia Gizi Indonesia · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllergyZincAffect (linguistics)Immune systemZinc deficiency (plant disorder)Meta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allergies pose significant health concerns, particularly in children, where they can adversely affect growth and quality of life. Recent studies have suggested that zinc deficiency may play a critical role in the immune dysregulation associated with allergies. The method used in This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and analyzed studies on the relationship between zinc levels and allergies in children, using data from PubMed, Science Direct, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library, and a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect size and risk of bias assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to examine the relationship between zinc levels and allergies in children. Our findings indicate that children with allergies may exhibit different zinc levels compared to healthy controls, with a pooled effect size of -0.56 (95% CI: [-0.99, -0.13]). The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity (Tau² = 0.39; Chi² = 79.41, df = 8, p < 0.00001; I² = 90%), highlighting the variability across studies and the necessity for further research to standardize the methodologies. These results were statistically significant (Z = 2.54, p = 0.01), suggesting a potential association between zinc levels and allergies in children. Further investigations are needed to explore whether zinc supplementation can support immune function and alleviate allergic symptoms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.026
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedia Gizi IndonesiaSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207