Building clinical capacity for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder diagnoses in western and northern Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder are common problems. In response to this problem the Canada Northwest FASD Research Network was established in 2005 by the Canada Northwest FASD Ministerial Partnership. This study was conducted to determine the FASD clinical activity in Canada Northwest. METHODS: The Network identified all clinical programs via Internet sites, provincial postings and professional word of mouth references that purported to do FASD assessments regularly using a multidisciplinary assessment team. Each of these programs was sent a questionnaire asking about clinical capacity, aggregate diagnostic results, team composition, time of clinical assessment and cost of assessment. RESULTS: Of the 27 programs identified to receive the questionnaire 15 programs responded. These programs were determined to have evaluated about 85% of the patients evaluated by all the programs. The total 7 jurisdictional capacity for FASD diagnosis was 816 evaluations in 2005 and projected to be 975 in 2006. Selection methods for appointing patients for assessment seemed excellent as 23% of those assessed were found to have FAS or pFAS and another 44% had other forms of FASD. The most common professionals to participate in the team evaluations were Paediatricians, Clinical Psychologists, Speech and Language Pathologists and Occupational Therapists. INTERPRETATION: Clinics are developing in western and northern Canada to diagnose patients with FASD. Comparing the experiences of these clinics can help to determine the continued need to increase diagnostic capacity, standardize diagnostic approaches to assure consistency of approach and diagnosis across the sites and appropriately staff and fund the programs. Key words: FASD; diagnosis; Canada; clinics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".