MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133216465 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2010.486962

Reported Sensory Processing of Children with Down Syndrome

2010· article· en· W2133216465 on OpenAlexaff
Maryanne Bruni, Debra Cameron, Shelly Dua, Sarah Noy

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory processingSensory systemSensationAudiologyPsychologyCognitionOccupational therapyDown syndromeSignificant differenceClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychiatryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigators have identified delays and differences in cognitive, language, motor, and sensory development in children with Down syndrome (DS). The purpose of this study was to determine the parent-reported frequency of sensory processing issues in children with DS aged 3–10 years, and the parent-reported functional impact of those sensory issues. Parents completed the short sensory profile (SSP) and a parent questionnaire (PQ). SSP results revealed a total score definite difference rate of 49%. Highest rates of probable and definite difference were in the low energy/weak, underresponsive/seeks sensation, and auditory filtering subsections of the SSP. Themes were generated from responses on the PQ regarding the functional impact of sensory differences on occupational performance in their children with DS, and related strategies currently used by parents. Findings from the study provide information to parents and health care professionals regarding sensory processing patterns in children with DS, and provide foundational data for future research.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207