MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280505143 · doi:10.1080/14789949.2022.2069587

Primary neurodevelopmental disorders in detained adolescents: point prevalence and patterns of care

2022· article· en· W4280505143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heidi Hales, Louise Warner, Annie Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Young adultPrimary careYoung personPsychiatryCensusMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthPopulationDevelopmental psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited information is available on the numbers and trajectories of detained young people with Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDD) disorders. We completed a census in all types of secure establishments for young people from England. From this, we sought to find the point prevalence of Neurodevelopmental Disorders in young people in secure settings. A quarter of 1322 young people in secure care had at least one NDD; for 204 (18.5%) this was a primary diagnosis. The most common primary diagnosis was ADHD, 101 (9%), followed by 55 (5%) young people with LD and 48 (4%) with ASC. All young people with a primary NDD had had contact prior to detention with at least one of the statutory agencies. More of those with a primary NDD were moved to their current secure placement from a secure placement than those young people without. Existing community identification and support for young people with an NDD is insufficient to prevent significant numbers developing a level of challenging behaviour that requires secure provision. The large numbers of such young people, especially young men, who are detained in the YJS is a grave concern.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic Psychiatry and PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207