Research Review: Executive function deficits in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-like symptoms are common in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD). FASD and ADHD groups both display executive function impairments; however, there is ongoing debate whether the pattern and magnitude of executive function deficits differs between these two types of disorders. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted (PubMed, PsychInfo; 1972-2013) to identify studies comparing the executive functioning of children with FASD with ADHD or control groups. FASD groups included those with and without dysmorphy (i.e., FAS, pFAS, ARND, and other FASD diagnoses). Effect sizes (Hedges' g, standardized mean difference) were calculated. Random effects meta-analytic models were performed using the metafor package for R. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies met inclusion criteria (FASD N = 2,115; ADHD N = 453; controls N = 1,990). Children with FASD showed the strongest and most consistent deficits in planning, fluency, and set-shifting compared to controls (Hedges' g = -0.94, -0.78) and children with ADHD (Hedges' g = -0.72, -0.32). FASD was associated with moderate to large impairments in working memory, compared to controls (Hedges' g = -.84, -.58) and small impairments relative to groups with ADHD (Hedges' g = -.26). Smaller and less consistent deficits were found on measures of inhibition and vigilance relative to controls (Hedges' g = -0.52, -0.31); FASD and ADHD were not differentiated on these measures. Moderator analyses indicated executive dysfunction was associated with older age, dysmorphy, and larger group differences in IQ. Sex and diagnostic system were not consistently related to effect size. CONCLUSIONS: While FASD is associated with global executive impairments, executive function weaknesses are most consistent for measures of planning, fluency, and set-shifting. Neuropsychological measures assessing these executive function domains may improve differential diagnosis and treatment of FASD.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".