MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747041984 · doi:10.1177/0829573517721127

Level 2 Screening With the PDD Behavior Inventory: Subgroup Profiles and Implications for Differential Diagnosis

2017· article· en· W2747041984 on OpenAlexaff
Ira L. Cohen, Xudong Liu, Melissa M. Hudson, Jennifer Gillis, Rachel N. S. Cavalari, Raymond G. Romanczyk, Bernard Z. Karmel, Judith M. Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersOffice for People With Developmental DisabilitiesMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsAutism Diagnostic Observation ScheduleAutismAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyClinical psychologyCartDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PDD Behavior Inventory (PDDBI) has recently been shown, in a large multisite study, to discriminate well between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other groups when its scores were examined using a machine learning tool, Classification and Regression Trees (CART). Discrimination was good for toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children; generalized across clinical diagnostic sites; and agreed well with Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) classifications. Results also revealed three subtypes of ASD: minimally verbal, verbal, and atypical that differed in developmental history, behavior profiles, and biomedical findings. Seven subtypes of Not-ASD children were identified, two of which were relatively common. Three of the remaining five relatively rare Not-ASD subgroups had highly atypical profiles marked either by extreme aggressiveness or by extreme ritualistic behaviors. PDDBI profiles of these rare subgroups were not previously characterized. In this study, profiles of all CART subgroups based on parent and teacher PDDBIs are described, along with their implications for diagnosis and assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207