MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159543783 · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2021.100962

Learning from atypical development: A systematic review of executive functioning in children and adolescents with the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

2021· review· en· W3159543783 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Everaert, Tessel Boerma, Iris Selten, Jacob Vorstman, Frank Wijnen

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Review · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDeletion syndromeTypically developingCognitive psychologyAutismGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this systematic review, we investigate executive functioning (EF) in a selected population: children and adolescents with 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (22q11DS). Studying a selected subset of the population can inform our understanding of typical development by reducing the etiological variability associated with phenotypic expression of EF. In 22q11DS, EF deficits are, at least in part, the consequence of the deletion on chromosome 22. However, the expression of EF phenotype in 22q11DS varies and is possibly influenced by certain risk factors that occur at increased rates in this population. As such, 22q11DS allows us to study the impact of these factors on EF in the context of one underlying genetic etiology. This review shows that inhibition and shifting are impaired in children with 22q11DS, while updating may be spared in childhood. Notably, EF deficits are found in this population after controlling for intellectual abilities, supporting the hypothesis that EF and intelligence do not reflect the same construct. Current evidence suggests that risk factors previously identified in the general population, such as congenital heart defects or low socioeconomic status, may not impact EF in a similar way in 22q11DS. In the process of demonstrating how studying the 22q11DS population can inform and advance our understanding of EF development, we identify gaps in the literature and highlight opportunities for future research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental ReviewSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207