MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962881043 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/k6qbg

Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes in Female Cancer Survivors: Protocol of a Pooled Analysis of Population-based Cohort Studies

2022· article· en· W6962881043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotData extractionMeta-analysisPublication biasProtocol (science)Subgroup analysisMEDLINECohort studyCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Approximately 80% of children, adolescents and young adults (CAYA) cancer patients are expected to fully recover and survive for five years or more. The reproductive health is a particular area of their concern. Evidence demonstrates that previous therapeutic treatments for cancer and comorbidities may have harmful effects on female fertility and delivery outcomes, which will significantly affect patient quality of life. However, these reports are heterogeneous. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide the up-to-date evidence of associations between cancer and obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Methods and analysis This meta-analysis will be carried out and reported with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. We will search online databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase until March, 2022 to identify all relevant cohort studies examining the relationship between cancer and subsequent obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Data extraction from eligible studies will be conducted independently by two unblinded investigators using pre-tested standardized data extraction forms and crosschecked by a senior investigator. Discrepancies will be resolved via discussion until consensus is reached. Methodological quality assessment for each study will be conducted using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) tool. We will apply the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to calculate the pooled estimates. Further sources of heterogeneity will be explored by performing subgroup analysis based on multiple study characteristics. Potential publication bias will be assessed by inspection of a funnel plot, Begg’s and Egger’s regression tests of funnel plot asymmetry. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be required as all data used for this pooled analysis will be obtained from published cohort studies. The results of this study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentation.

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)0.155
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.176
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1550.176
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.041
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207