Applicability of Central Auditory Processing Disorder Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Central auditory processing disorder ([C]APD) is a relatively recent construct that has given rise to 2 theoretical models: the Buffalo Model and the Bellis/Ferre Model. These models describe 4 and 5 (C)APD categories, respectively. The present study examines the applicability of these models to clinical practice. Neither of these models was based on data from peer-reviewed sources. METHOD: This is a retrospective study that reviewed 178 records of children diagnosed with (C)APD, of which 48 were retained for analysis. RESULTS: More than 80% of the children could be classified into one of the Buffalo Model categories, while more than 90% remained unclassified under the Bellis/Ferre Model. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the classification of the Buffalo Model is based primarily on a single central auditory test (Staggered Spondaic Word), whereas the Bellis/Ferre Model classification uses a combination of auditory test results. CONCLUSION: The 2 models provide a conceptual framework for (C)APD, but they must be further refined to be fully applicable in clinical settings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".