MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917896421

A Critique of the New Canadian Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Guideline.

2017· article· en· W2917896421 on OpenAlexaffabout
John D. McLennan, Peter Braunberger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderMental healthGuidelinePsychiatryPsychological interventionPsychologyMedicineHumanitiesPregnancyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) guideline was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2016. This is relevant to the mental health field as mental health symptoms and psychiatric disorders are often identified as associated with and/or part of FASD presentations. Unfortunately, the new guideline has not advanced understanding of the interface between FASD and mental health problems; rather it may contribute to additional confusion. For example, a new recommendation to include additional mental health symptoms, such as anxiety and affect dysregulation, as manifestations contributing to a diagnosis of FASD is particularly concerning given the paucity of evidence supporting this assertion and the potential to distort delivery of mental health interventions for mental health problems. In addition, the guideline recommendation for introducing an "at risk for FASD" designation is not without risk. An appeal is made for greater scrutiny in the construction of diagnostic criteria and guidelines and for a more careful delineation of causal relationships and comorbidities to better inform the delivery of evidence-based mental health care.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.180
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.180
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0100.004
Research integrity0.0210.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207