MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098558063 · doi:10.2182/cjot.2012.79.1.8

Sensory Processing and ADHD in children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

2012· article· en· W2098558063 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lynne Abele-Webster, Joyce Magill‐Evans, Jacqueline Pei

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderFetal alcoholSensory processingPrenatal alcohol exposureSensory systemFetal alcohol syndromeAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychologyIntervention (counseling)AudiologyAlcohol use disorderPsychiatryClinical psychologyAlcoholMedicinePregnancyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sensory processing problems are prevalent in children who have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is unclear to what degree these problems are distinct from attention deficits as measured during the diagnostic process in these children. PURPOSE: To understand sensory processing in these children, which may assist with early identification and intervention. METHOD: The relationship between attention and sensory processing was studied in a retrospective sample of 26 Canadian children diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. FINDINGS: A very low correlation (r = .02) between Short Sensory Profile scores and the attention deficit hyperactivity index of the Conners' Parent Rating Scales was found for the five- to ten-year-old children. Sensory processing problems were found in 81% of the children, similar to other studies of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. IMPLICATIONS: These findings can guide modifications of the environments, tasks, and approaches to children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207