MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044789924 · doi:10.1017/s1355617712001026

Affective Decision-Making on the Iowa Gambling Task in Children and Adolescents with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders

2012· article· en· W2044789924 on OpenAlexafffund
Katrina Kully‐Martens, Sarah Treit, Jacqueline Pei, Carmen Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
KeywordsIowa gambling taskFetal alcoholPsychologyCognitionPrenatal alcohol exposureTask (project management)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyExecutive functionsFetal alcohol syndromeAudiologyPsychiatryMedicineAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) have difficulties with cognitive-based executive function (EF) tasks. The goal of the present study was to determine if children with FASD have impairments on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which measures affective EF (i.e., decision-making and risk-taking). Individuals with FASD (n = 31) and healthy controls (n = 31), aged 8-17 completed the IGT. Children with FASD were significantly impaired on the IGT compared to controls. Over the course of the task, control scores improved, whereas children with FASD exhibited an overall decrease in scores. Scores increased significantly with age in the control group but did not differ significantly with age for FASD participants. Children with FASD exhibited decision-making and risk-taking impairments on a hot EF task. Children with FASD did not appear to learn from negative experiences and shift to making more positive decisions over time and their performance did not improve with age. The implications of poor task performance and a lack of age-related findings in children with FASD are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207