Evidence-based milestone ages as a framework for developmental surveillance
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
Developmental surveillance is the process of monitoring child development over time to promote healthy development and to identify possible problems. Standardized developmental screeners have greater sensitivity than milestone-based history taking. Unfortunately, Canadian screening guidelines, to date, are sparse, logistical barriers to implementation have slowed uptake of screening tests and physicians continue to rely on milestones. When using clinical impression as a framework for surveillance, clinicians may not know when to consider a milestone delayed because developmental attainments exist within an age range and there is an absence of referenced percentiles on available published tables, which are particularly problematic for the cognitive and social-emotional sectors, which are less familiar to physicians. A novel, five-sector milestone framework with upper limits, referenced to the best available level of evidence, is presented. This framework may be used in teaching and may help physicians to better recognize failed milestones to facilitate early identification of children at risk for developmental disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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