MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024924987 · doi:10.1017/s001216220500006x

Psychological profile of children with Noonan syndrome

2005· article· en· W2024924987 on OpenAlexaff
D A Lee, Sara Portnoy, Peter Hill, C Gillberg, MA Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Tyrosine Phosphatases
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRutterIntelligence quotientCohortWechsler Adult Intelligence ScalePopulationWechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenNoonan syndromeClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPediatricsPsychiatryMedicineCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cohort of 48 children with Noonan syndrome, with a mean age of 9 years 10 months (SD 3y 7mo; 28 males, 20 females), was recruited from a national study. Children were assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Test of Motor Impairment-Revised (TOMI-R). The Piers-Harris Self-evaluation Questionnaire was also completed in a subgroup of age-appropriate children. Children's parents and teachers completed the Rutter A and B scales to assess of the degree of behavioural and emotional problems respectively. Mean Full-scale IQ score was 84, and one-quarter of the participants had learning disabilities. Verbal IQ tended to be slightly lower than Performance IQ. About half of the group showed evidence of mild to moderate impairment, confirming the impression of 'clumsiness/developmental coordination disorder' on the TOMI-R. Level of self-esteem, as determined by the Piers-Harris Questionnaire, was comparable to that of a standardized population. This research has identified some characteristic psychological features in Noonan syndrome. However, a specific behavioural phenotype could not be identified.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations91
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicProtein Tyrosine PhosphatasesFrench-language works237,207