MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2670167636 · doi:10.3109/13668250.2017.1310807

French translation and validation of a fragile X syndrome screening checklist

2017· article· en· W2670167636 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersInstitut National de Recherche et de SécuritéUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsFragile X syndromeChecklistIntellectual disabilityPsychologyClinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)FMR1PsychiatryTest (biology)MedicineFragile x

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common cause of inherited intellectual disability among men. This syndrome is frequently underdiagnosed in adults. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a French translation of the screening checklist Fragiele-X screeningslijst.Method: The validation sample for the translated checklist included 22 pairs of men between the ages of 18 and 52, matched by age and degree of intellectual impairment.Results: The translated checklist achieved coefficients of 0.92 for internal consistency, 0.90 for test-retest reliability and 0.65 for inter-rater reliability. These psychometric properties are commensurate with those of the original checklist.Conclusion: Therefore, the translated checklist developed in this study can be considered a valid screening instrument for the detection of FXS in men with intellectual disabilities.Abbreviations: FXS: fragile X syndrome; FMR1: fragile X mental retardation 1 (gene)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it