MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967381713 · doi:10.1080/09297040802385400

Executive Functioning in Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Profiles and Age-Related Differences

2008· article· en· W1967381713 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Rasmussen, Jeffrey Bisanz

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Neuropsychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVerbal fluency testFluencyFetal alcoholExecutive functionsCognitive flexibilityDevelopmental psychologyWisconsin Card Sorting TestCognitionTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyNeuropsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this project was to examine the profile of executive function (EF) deficits and age-related differences among children with FASD. Twenty-nine children with FASD (8 to 16 years of age) completed 8 tests from the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). They had difficulty on many components of EF including cognitive flexibility, inhibition, some measures of verbal fluency, abstract thinking, deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing, problem solving, and concept formation. A distinctive profile emerged with performance being poorest on the card sorting test and relatively high on category fluency, design fluency, and the tower test, indicating relative strengths on some visual-spatial EF tasks. Older children with FASD showed more difficulty (relative to the norm) on some verbal tests of EF than younger children with FASD, suggesting that difficulty on some verbal EF tasks appears to become more pronounced with increasing age.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations134
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild NeuropsychologySame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207