SCREENING FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY IN THE SETTING OF AN AMBULATORY PEDIATRIC CLINIC
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental screening tests greatly improve the accuracy of identifying children with developmental delay. We prospectively tested whether parent-completed questionnaires can be effectively used in the setting of a busy ambulatory pediatric clinic to accurately screen for developmental impairments. We also assessed not only the accuracy of two screening instruments (Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ and the Child Development Inventory (CDI)) but also whether the pediatrician's opinion regarding the child's development could be used as a potential modifier to improve accuracy. The goal would be to devise a screening paradigm that is both time-efficient and practical. Three important conclusions were reached: (1) parent-completed questionnaires can be feasibly utilized in the setting of a pediatric clinic; (2) pediatrician's opinion had little effect in ameliorating the accuracy of either questionnaire; and (3) accuracy of these screening instruments did not meet the requisite standard for development screening tests as set by current recommendations. Based on these results and those of other studies, we question whether a single screening instrument at one point in time is sufficient to accurately estimate the developmental status of a child. This study raises important questions about how developmental screening can be performed and suggests that screening should occur over time.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it