Clinical Utility of the Limited Prosocial Emotions Specifier in the Childhood-Onset Subtype of Conduct Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinicians may specify the diagnosis of conduct disorder (CD) as "with limited prosocial emotions" (LPE). This specifier is thought to identify youths with particularly severe and stable symptomatology. However, few studies have examined the clinical usefulness of the LPE specifier among children with childhood-onset CD. The current study examines whether the LPE specifier distinguishes children with particularly severe and persistent symptoms among those with childhood-onset CD. The study also aims to test whether the LPE specifier aids in identifying children with subclinical CD whose conduct problems are at risk of increasing. METHOD: Two hundred sixty-four children showing at least one CD symptom before age 10 were divided based on the presence of CD and the specifier. Children with and without the specifier were compared on number of CD symptoms (assessed at study inception) and trajectory of conduct problems (assessed over 4 years). The analyses controlled for oppositional defiant and attention deficit hyperactivity symptomatology. RESULTS: Compared with children with CD but without LPE, children with CD and the LPE specifier did not differ on likelihood of endorsing most symptoms nor on total numbers of symptoms. Moreover, they did not show a more stable pattern of conduct problems across the 4 years. Children with subclinical CD with and without the LPE specifier were also similar in terms of their symptoms, severity, and evolution of their problems. CONCLUSIONS: Among youths with childhood-onset CD, the specifier appears to offer limited value in identifying those with particularly severe and stable CD symptomatology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".