MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153141111 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-116.4.278

Association Between Fatigue and Autistic Symptoms in Children With Cri du Chat Syndrome

2011· article· en· W2153141111 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Claro, Kim Cornish, Reut Gruber

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildhood Autism Rating ScaleAutismRating scalePsychologyClinical psychologyAssociation (psychology)Down syndromeIntellectual disabilityAutism spectrum disorderPsychiatryMedicineAudiologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current study, the authors examined whether the fatigue level of children diagnosed with cri du chat syndrome was associated with the expression of autistic symptoms. Sixty-nine children with cri du chat syndrome were compared with 47 children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities who did not differ on intellectual severity. Participants were assessed using the Infant Sleep Questionnaire ( J. M. B. Morrell, 1999 ) for fatigue-level rating and the Childhood Autism Rating Scale ( E. Schopler, R. J. Reichler, & B. R. Renner, 1988 ) for autism-level rating. In support of the authors' hypothesis, results indicated that children who exhibited high levels of fatigue were more likely to express high levels of autistic symptoms. Contrary to the authors' hypothesis, children in the comparison group who exhibited high levels of fatigue conferred the greatest vulnerability to the expression of autistic symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207