Benchmarking unhealthy food marketing to children and adolescents in Canada: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess the validity of administrative database algorithms used to identify cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsycInfo were searched for studies that validated algorithms for the identification of ASD, ADHD and FASD in administrative databases published between 1995 and 2021 in English or French. The grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted relevant information, conducted reporting quality, risk of bias and applicability assessments, and synthesized the evidence qualitatively. PROSPERO CRD42019146941. RESULTS: Out of 48 articles assessed at full-text level, 14 were included in the review. No studies were found for FASD. Despite potential sources of bias and significant between-study heterogeneity, results suggested that increasing the number of ASD diagnostic codes required from a single data source increased specificity and positive predictive value at the expense of sensitivity. The best-performing algorithms for the identification of ASD were based on a combination of data sources, with physician claims database being the single best source. One study found that education data might improve the identification of ASD (i.e. higher sensitivity) in school-aged children when combined with physician claims data; however, additional studies including cases without ASD are required to fully evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of such algorithms. For ADHD, there was not enough information to assess the impact of number of diagnostic codes or additional data sources on algorithm accuracy. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence to suggest that cases of ASD and ADHD can be identified using administrative data; however, studies that assessed the ability of algorithms to discriminate reliably between cases with and without the condition of interest were lacking. No evidence exists for FASD. Methodologically higher-quality studies are needed to understand the full potential of using administrative data for the identification of these conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".