Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders in Child Care Settings: A Meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children often enter a child-care system (eg, orphanage, foster care, child welfare system) because of unfavorable circumstances (eg, maternal alcohol and/or drug problems, child abuse/neglect). Such circumstances increase the odds of prenatal alcohol exposure, and thus this population can be regarded as high risk for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD). The primary objective was to estimate a pooled prevalence for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and FASD in various child-care systems based on data from existing studies that used an active case ascertainment method. METHODS: A systematic literature review, using multiple electronic bibliographic databases, and meta-analysis of internationally published and unpublished studies that reported the prevalence of FAS and/or FASD in all types of child-care systems were conducted. The pooled prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the Mantel-Haenszel method, assuming a random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed for studies that used either passive surveillance or mixed methods. RESULTS: On the basis of studies that used active case ascertainment, the overall pooled prevalence of FAS and FASD among children and youth in the care of a child-care system was calculated to be 6.0% (60 per 1000; 95% CI: 38 to 85 per 1000) and 16.9% (169 per 1000; 95% CI: 109 to 238 per 1000), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that children and youth housed in or under the guardianship of the wide range of child-care systems constitute a population that is high-risk for FASD. It is imperative that screening be implemented in these at-risk populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it