A Systematic Review of Continuous Performance Task Research in Children Prenatally Exposed to Alcohol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to review systematically, research investigating an association between the continuous performance task (CPT) in children and exposure to alcohol in utero, in order to identify any evidence of a specific deficit in performance. METHODS: Seven electronic databases and three websites were searched. Papers were selected in accordance with specific inclusion criteria and scored in terms of the methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Marked methodological heterogeneity limited the validity of any statistical meta-analysis and a descriptive synthesis was performed instead. RESULTS: A total of 14 papers were identified for inclusion. There was no consistent evidence of any association between prenatal alcohol exposure and correct responses, reaction time, commission or omission errors during CPT testing. Apparent trends in the reported results, however, suggest that a potential effect might have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying a specific profile of CPT performance may assist in the detection and management of attention deficits amongst children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Future research with more consistent measures of exposure and outcome is, however, required before any valid generalizations about CPT performance can be made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".