MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283319752 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac038

Updated evidence-based developmental attainments for children: First 6 years

2022· article· en· W4283319752 on OpenAlexaff
Cara Dosman, Sheila Gallagher, Patricia LaBerge, Sandra Sahagian Whalen, Dorrie Koscielnuk, Madeleine Plaisance, Laurie-Anne Dufour, Debbi Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild developmentGrowth chartDevelopmental psychologyDevelopmental MilestonePsychologyChartDevelopmental agePercentileMedical educationMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

chart empowers clinicians to give parenting guidance and to evaluate age-specific developmental attainment of their pediatric patients. A practical knowledge translation tool, the chart integrates a comprehensive array of developmental skill attainments, citing the range of sources from classic to current literature. It includes definitions, explanations, and examples for skills, attainment age range, percentile, and oldest age of attainment where available so that the reader can 'estimate the age' for a child's skills in each developmental sector. Sub-headings focus the clinician's search for skills. This updated office reference is of critical use when clinicians guide parents with strategies suited to the child's level of developmental skills. With levels of evidence described, this clinical tool could be used for future national or international studies to develop strategies most useful for clinicians, trainees of different levels, and parents supporting child development.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207