International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Sets for cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder, and attention‐deficit–hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Capturing functional information is crucial in childhood disability. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets promote assessments of functional abilities and disabilities in clinical practice regarding circumscribed diagnoses. However, the specificity of ICF Core Sets for childhood-onset disabilities has been doubted. This study aimed to identify content commonalities and differences among the ICF Core Sets for cerebral palsy (CP), and the newly developed Core Sets for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: The categories within each Core Set were aggregated at the ICF component and chapter levels. Content comparison was conducted using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: The activities and participation component of the ICF was the most covered across all Core Sets. Main differences included representation of ICF components and coverage of ICF chapters within each component. CP included all ICF components, while ADHD and ASD predominantly focused on activities and participation. Environmental factors were highly represented in the ADHD Core Sets (40.5%) compared to the ASD (28%) and CP (27%) Core Sets. INTERPRETATION: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Sets for CP, ASD, and ADHD capture both common but also unique functional information, showing the importance of creating condition-specific, ICF-based tools to build functional profiles of individuals with childhood-onset disabilities. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets for cerebral palsy (CP), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) include unique functional information. The ICF-based tools for CP, ASD, and ADHD differ in terms of representation and coverage of ICF components and ICF chapters. Representation of environmental factors uniquely influences functioning and disability across ICF Core Sets for CP, ASD and ADHD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".