Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since the first description of the foetal damage of alcohol in 1967, numerous studies have outlined different aspects of neurodevelopmental dysfunction, adversely affecting the lives of children worldwide. Although the cause of the syndrome is sorted out, the pathogenesis of brain damage is far from being clear. In contrast to children exhibiting the full facial dysmorphology, who are relatively easy to diagnose, in those presenting only with alcohol-related neurodevelopmental damage diagnosis is much more challenging due to poor specificity of the brain dysfunction. Hence, identifying the neurodevelopmental phenotype of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a major challenge. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, a behavioural phenotype of FASD has been described and validated using items from the Child Behaviour Checklist. This tool has high sensitivity and specificity in separating children with FASD from those with ADHD and from healthy controls. In parallel, a number of intervention studies show promise in improving the abilities of children and adolescents with the syndrome to cope with daily tasks and improve their quality of life. SUMMARY: The neurobehavioural screening test can facilitate screening for FASD and is an official screening tool in the FASD toolkit of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Promising new interventions may attenuate the long-term outcome of these children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".