The ASQ and R-PDQ telephone-administered validation within the OTIS antidepressant in pregnancy study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the telephone administration of the 12-month Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and the 9- to 24-month Revised Prescreening Denver Questionnaire (R-PDQ) using the Antidepressants in Pregnancy Study cohort from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists. The ASQ includes five domains (communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem-solving, and personal-social). The R-PDQ tests four areas of development (gross motor, fine motor, personal-social, and language). Both instruments were self and telephone-administered to mothers at 12 months postpartum. Concordance between the telephone and self-administration was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% CIs. For the ASQ, concordance between test scores was substantial for the communication scale (ICC = 0.76, 95% CI [0.63, 0.85]), almost perfect for the gross motor scale (ICC = 0.83, 95% CI [0.73, 0.89]), and moderate for the fine motor, problem-solving, and personal-social scales (ICC = 0.43, 95% CI [0.19, 0.61]; ICC = 0.42, 95% CI [0.19, 0.61]; and ICC = 0.50, 95% CI [0.29, 0.67], respectively). Regarding the R-PDQ, concordance between test scores was as follows: gross motor (ICC = 0.90, 95% CI [0.83, 0.94]), language (ICC = 0.57, 95% CI [0.36, 0.73]), and personal-social scales (ICC = 0.26, 95% CI [0.00, 0.49]). For the fine motor scale, the correlation between both modes was 100%. The 12-month ASQ telephone administration could be an alternative for children developmental screening. Except the personal-social scale, the 9- to 24-month R-PDQ could be telephone-administered for prescreening development.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".