MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996988014 · doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2022eeeeee

VISUAL SEARCH ATTENTION AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN CHINESE CHILDREN WITH WILLIAMS SYNDROME

2008· article· en· W1996988014 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengyan Zhao, Jie Shao, Chunhong Xie, Yanxia Wang, Yufeng Qin, Kim Cornish, Annette Karmiloff‐Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicWilliams Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveCognitionMedicineWisconsin Card Sorting TestWilliams syndromeVisual searchTrail Making TestExecutive functionsAudiologyIntelligence quotientDevelopmental psychologyNeuropsychologyPsychiatryCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Williams syndrome (WS) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder that is caused by a hemizygous deletion on chromosome 7q11.23. The interest of WS to neurocognitive scientists stems from the uneven profiles of cognitive abilities, with spatial cognition seriously impaired and language and face processing relatively proficient. We know relatively little about the visual search attention and executive function in children with WS. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the nature of visual search attention and executive function in children with WS, compared with children with Down syndrome (DS), healthy chronological age–matched control subjects (CA), and healthy mental age–matched control subjects (MA). METHODS: A total of 142 children were tested: 21 with WS, 25 with DS, 45 CA, and 41 MA. MA were matched to the children with WS and DS using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. All participants were assessed on a set of computerized visual search tasks and Wilding Monster Sorting Test using a touch-screen. RESULTS: The results showed that selective attention, switch, and sustained attention of children with WS all are less developed. Children with WS produced a large number of shape errors, and they also confused shape distractors with targets more than the other groups. Children with WS exhibited poorer executive performance as compared with both groups of typical children. They produced more repetitive errors than did children with DS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal distinct visual search deficits and atypically developing executive function in children with WS.

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)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicWilliams Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207