MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964011036 · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2602_4

An Investigation of Impulsivity in Children With Early-Treated Congenital Hypothyroidism

2004· article· en· W1964011036 on OpenAlexaff
Libbe Kooistra, Thomas Vulsma, Jaap van der Meere

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImpulsivityCongenital hypothyroidismDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicineMedicineThyroid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main feature of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) is a total or partial absence of thyroid hormone, caused by a developmental disorder of the thyroid gland. Introduction of neonatal thyroid screening allows early treatment with replacement hormone. As a result the prognosis of CH has greatly improved but neuropsychological problems do still occur. Claims that early-treated CH is associated with impulsivity were tested with a memory search task comprising 2 response probability conditions: a baseline condition in which "yes" and "no" responses were equally probable and a response bias condition in which the probability of a "no" response was raised to 70%. Impulsivity was defined as the ability to stop and change a response set and was assessed from the amount of inaccurate "no" responses made. Comparisons were made between 47 children with early-treated CH and 35 controls at the age of 7.5 years. Children with early-treated CH were notably slow and variable in their overall task performance but, most important, did not show signs of poor impulse control. Suggested short-term memory problems in these children could not be confirmed. Performance could not be attributed to early disease-related factors or lowered intelligence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuropsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207