156 A positive screen on the 18-month Infant Toddler Checklist is associated with a later developmental disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends an enhanced 18-month well baby visit, including a standardized developmental screening tool. Few studies have evaluated the association between early identification of developmental delay using a standardized screening tool and later developmental outcomes. The Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC) was developed for early identification of children who have or are at risk for developing a communication impairment and has been recommended for early detection of autism spectrum disorder. The primary objective was to evaluate the association between a positive ITC screen at the 18-month visit and a parent-reported developmental disorder at 3–10 years. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between a positive ITC screen and parent-reported school concern and/or receipt of extra school resources. We used a prospective cohort study design recruiting children from 9 primary care practices. At the 18-month visit, parents completed the ITC, which is a 1-page, 24-item checklist. The total score is dichotomized as “concern/no concern” using the 10th percentile cut-off. At the bottom of the ITC there is an open-ended, 1-item parent-concern question “Do you have any concerns about your child’s development?”. At follow up, between 3–10 years, parents reported on the presence of a developmental disorder (ASD, ADHD, learning problem, developmental delay) and school outcomes, using a standardized questionnaire. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate an association between the 18-month ITC and later outcomes. We included 540 children with a mean age of 18.1 (SD1.2) months. Of these, 69 (12.8%) had a positive ITC screen, and 26 (4.8%) had a parent-reported developmental disorder at follow-up. The adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses showed: Children who screened positive on the ITC at the 18-month visit were at increased odds of a later developmental disorder, school concern for development, and receipt of additional school resources. These findings suggest that the ITC may be promising for developmental screening of Canadian children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".