Identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities from nationalised preschool health check
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Models of psychometric screening to identify individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) have had limited success. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, routine developmental surveillance of preschool children is undertaken using the Before School Check (B4SC), which includes psychometric and physical health screening instruments. This study aimed to determine whether combining multiple screening measures could improve the prediction of NDDs. METHODS: Linked administrative health data were used to identify NDDs, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, within a multi-year national cohort of children who undertook the B4SC. Cox proportional hazards models, with different combinations of potential predictors, were used to predict onset of a NDD. Harrell's c-statistic for composite models were compared with a model representing recommended cutoff psychometric scores for referral in New Zealand. RESULTS: Data were examined for 287,754 children, and NDDs were identified in 10,953 (3.8%). The best-performing composite model combining the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, the Parental Evaluation of Developmental Status, vision screening and biological sex had 'excellent' predictive power (C-statistic: 0.83) compared with existing referral pathways which had 'poor' predictive power (C-statistic: 0.68). In addition, the composite model was able to improve the sensitivity of NDD diagnosis detection by 13% without any reduction in specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of B4SC screening measures using composite modelling could lead to significantly improved identification of preschool children with NDDs when compared with surveillance that rely on individual psychometric test results alone. This may optimise access to academic, personal and family support for children with NDDs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".