Differentiating attention deficits in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or attention‐deficit–hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The attention and inhibition problems found in children with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are also common in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). Attempts to distinguish ADHD from FASDs in terms of these deficits are rare and were pursued in this study. METHOD: A total of 116 children (47 with ADHD, 31 males, 16 females; 30 with FASDs, 17 males, 13 females; and 39 comparison children, 20 males, 19 females) participated. The mean age was 9 years 4 months (SD 1y 8mo) in the ADHD groups, 8 years 10 months (SD 1y 2mo) in the FASD group, and 9 years 1 month (SD 1y 1mo) in the comparison group. Sustained attention was tested with a slow event rate continuous performance task (CPT). Inhibitory control was tested with both a slow and fast event rate Go/No-Go task. RESULTS: On the CPT task, children with ADHD, combined type (ADHD-C), ADHD, primarily inattentive type (ADHD-PI), and FASDs showed greater declines in task performance as a function of time than comparison children, suggesting sustained attention problems in all clinical groups. Children's Go/No-Go performance was event-rate dependent, with the ADHD-C group being affected in the slow condition and the ADHD-PI and FASD groups having problems with the fast condition. INTERPRETATION: Children with ADHD-C are typically impaired in handling understimulation, while children with FASDs may have problems with overstimulation. The dissociation in responsivity to event rate between groups may have significant differential diagnostic value.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".