MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039492047 · doi:10.1080/09297040701864570

Neuropsychological Functioning in Children with Medium Chain Acyl Coenzyme A Dehydrogenase Deficiency (MCADD): The Impact of Early Diagnosis and Screening on Outcome

2008· article· en· W2039492047 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela Joy, Antonella La Rocca, Marian Haas, Bridget Wilcken

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Neuropsychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveNeuropsychologyPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentPediatricsClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with medium chain acyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency (MCADD) have been reported to be at high risk for neurocognitive deficits. However this has not been systematically studied and little is known about the exact nature of neuropsychological sequelae or of the impact of early diagnosis and screening on outcome. We examined cognitive and adaptive outcome in children with MCADD (N = 38, age range: 2 years, 2 months - 10 years, 3 months) diagnosed either through a newborn screening program(tandem mass spectrometry/MSMS) or upon clinical presentation. There was no evidence of overall intellectual impairment in either groups but there was some suggestion of poorer verbal and specific executive functioning (i.e., planning) abilities in the unscreened cohorts. Adaptive functioning was relatively intact with the exception of reduced Daily Living Skills in both our screened and unscreened groups. Early diagnosis and greater number of hospitalizations were related to higher verbal, communication, and socialization skills. Overall, our results highlight the importance of early diagnosis and management for children with MCADD.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild NeuropsychologySame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207