Comparing Executive Functioning in Children and Adolescents With Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and ADHD: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are associated with a range of neurocognitive impairments. Executive functioning deficits are a hallmark feature of both disorders. Method: The present meta-analysis was undertaken to disentangle the behavioral phenotype of FASD and ADHD by quantitatively differentiating executive functioning differences between these two groups. The current meta-analysis reviews 15 studies comparing children and adolescents with FASD and ADHD to typically developing (TD) samples, on a variety of executive function measures. Results: Results indicate that when compared with TD samples, FASD and ADHD samples demonstrate significant executive function deficits ( d = 0.82 and d = 0.55, respectively). In addition, FASD samples experience significantly greater deficits when compared with ADHD samples ( d = 0.25). Results were moderated by IQ and socioeconomic status. Conclusion: These findings further our understanding of the cognitive differences between FASD and ADHD samples and have the potential to influence future basic research, assessment, and intervention.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".