Diagnostic status, functional status and complexity among Canadian children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify and describe selected key characteristics of children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities (NDD/D) in a national disability survey database. METHOD: Secondary analysis of data on children aged 5-14 years in the Canadian Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS). Children with NDD/D were ascertained from ICD-10 diagnoses "fine-tuned" with functional limitation information, and classified into six predetermined NDD/D subtypes by independent expert evaluators. RESULTS: Children with NDD/D accounted for 73.5% of children with disabilities. Amongst children with a single NDD/D type, 28.8% were in the Cognition-Learning subgroup, 22.2% Psychological, 19.9% Social interactive, 13.3% Sensory, 10.6% Motor and 5.2% Speech-Language disorders/disabilities. Complexity, both diagnostic (more than one ICD-10 diagnosis) and functional (more than one parent-identified functional limitation), was encountered frequently though variably across NDD/D subtypes. In aligning parent-identified functional limitation information with researcher-ascertained assignment of children to NDD/D subgroups, matching with additional limitations (61.3% of children) occurred far more commonly than simple 1:1 matches (14.0%) or non-matching (24.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Conceptual, definitional and terminology issues affect population-based research on children with NDD/D. Ascertainment methods can use diagnostic as well as functional information. Diagnostic information alone is likely to under-represent the complexity and needs of children with NDD/D and their families.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".