ASSESSING FOR FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER: A SURVEY OF ASSESSMENT MEASURES USED IN ALBERTA CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The recommended "gold standard" for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) assessment involves a multidisciplinary diagnostic team and comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests to evaluate functioning across 10 brain domains. The current Canadian Guideline for diagnosis of FASD outlines a list of test measures for assessment; however, very little research exists to explore which specific tools are being used in clinical practice. Objectives The purpose of the current study was to gain a better understanding of the testing measures used by FASD clinicians in Alberta, Canada. Methods A survey was sent to coordinators of 23 Alberta FASD clinics requesting them to distribute the survey to their diagnostic team members, including physicians, psychologists, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), and occupational therapists (OTs). Results A wide range of measures (both direct and indirect; n = 173) to assess brain domains were reported by clinics. Many tests were used to assess function across multiple brain domains. Most of the commonly used tests aligned with those suggested in the Canadian Guideline; however, there were many additional measures being used that were that were not listed in the Guideline. Conclusions This study revealed important information about the use of testing measures in FASD assessment and sheds light on the commonalities in practice across clinics in Alberta. Results demonstrate strong convergence of direct and indirect measures to assess brain function. Ultimately, identifying a comprehensive, reliable, and usable testing battery of measures for FASD assessment will improve the clarity and accuracy of the diagnostic process and facilitate advancements in the field, as well as enable comparisons across clinics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".