Screening for Risk of Developmental Delay in a primary care setting using the Nippising District Developmental Screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Early growth and development in the first five years of life is strongly associated with health outcomes. The Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS) is a free parent-reported screening tool recommended by the Canadian Pediatric Society as one of the tools for developmental screening in children OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of a positive screen for risk of developmental delay in a cohort of healthy children at 18-months and 5 years. To identify risk factors (child, socio-demo-graphic and home environment) associated with a positive screen for risk of developmental delay. DESIGN/METHODS: A cross-sectional study of healthy Canadian children attending 18-months and 5 year well-child visits between June 2008 and February 2015 was conducted through the TARGet Kids! practice-based research network. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with a positive screen for developmental delay. Risk factors of development delay identified from literature were:, male sex, low birth weight, low income, low maternal education, maternal unemployment, non-industrialized immigrant status, single parent family, only child and older maternal age. RESULTS: 1086 children (53% male) at 18 months and 575 children (51% male) at 5 years were included in the final analysis. At 18 months, 341 (31.4%) of children (95% CI, 28.7% - 34.3%) and at 5 years 166 (28.9%) (95% CI, 25.2% -32.8%) were screen positive base on 1+ flag NDDS. At 18 months, children with a low birthweight (OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.22-2.28), with a mother with low education (OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.07-2.85), and those from non-industrialized immigrant families (OR=1.85; 95% CI 1.37-2.49) were associated with an increased odds of a positive screen for developmental delay based on the 1+ NDDS flag. A female child (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.96) and an only child (OR=0.76; 95% CI 0.57-0.99) were associated with a decreased odds of a positive screen for developmental delay. At 5 years, factors associated with a positive screen for developmental delay based on the 1+ NDDS flag were: low maternal education (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.14-4.39) (children had 2.24 times greater odds of a positive screen for developmental delay) and older maternal age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.09) (every 1-year increase in maternal age, children had 1.05 times greater odds of a positive screen for developmental delay). A female child was associated with a decreased odds of a positive screen for developmental delay (OR=0.66; 95% CI 0.46-0.96) based on the 1+ NDDS flag. CONCLUSION: In a population of healthy urban children the NDDS identified 30% at both 18 month and 5 years at risk for developmental delay. Risk factors for developmental delay were associated with a positive NDDS screen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".