MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067259789 · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.018127

Episodic psychiatric disorders in teenagers with learning disabilities with and without autism

2006· article· en· W2067259789 on OpenAlexaff
Elspeth Bradley, Patrick Bolton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsSurrey Place Centre
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsAutismPsychiatryPsychologyLearning disabilityMood disordersClinical psychologyMoodAutism spectrum disorderDepression (economics)Anxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems in people with learning disabilities and autism are poorly understood. AIMS: To investigate the prevalence of episodic psychiatric disorders in a sample of teenagers with learning disabilities with and without autism. METHOD: Teenagers with learning disabilities living in one geographical area were identified. Those with autism were matched to those without. A semi-structured investigator-based interview linked to Research Diagnostic Criteria was used to assess prevalence and type of episodic disorders. RESULTS: Significantly more individuals with autism had a lifetime episodic disorder, most commonly major depression. Two individuals with autism had bipolar affective disorder. Other episodic disorders with mood components and behaviour change were also evident, as were unclassifiable disorders characterised by complex psychiatric symptoms, chronicity and general deterioration. Antipsychotics and stimulants were most frequently prescribed; the former associated with episodic disorder, the latter with autism. CONCLUSIONS: Teenagers with learning disabilities and autism have higher rates of episodic psychiatric disorders than those with learning disabilities alone.

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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations110
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207