Lignes directrices pour l’examen diagnostique des troubles neurodéveloppementaux chez l'adulte en neuropsychologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les demandes d’évaluation neuropsychologique pour les troubles neurodéveloppementaux chez l’adulte augmentent significativement. Bien que ce sujet ait donné lieu à de nombreuses recherches chez les enfants, ce thème reste relativement inexploré chez les adultes et les études décrivant la symptomatologie, son évolution et son impact fonctionnel demeurent rares. De plus, le diagnostic chez l’adulte connaît plusieurs défis liés notamment au chevauchement de symptomatologies ou à la présence de comorbidités. Cet article propose une revue de la littérature de deux entités, le Trouble du Déficit de l’Attention/Hyperactivité et le Trouble du Spectre de l’Autisme, avec quelques considérations autour de la problématique du haut potentiel. Sur la base d’études récentes et de recommandations de sociétés savantes, l’objectif est de proposer des lignes directrices afin de guider l’évaluation neuropsychologique. Le but est d’améliorer l’harmonisation des pratiques grâce à une démarche basée sur les preuves afin de proposer une prise en charge optimale au patient. Nowadays, the number of neuropsychological evaluation requests concerning neurodevelopmental disorders in adults is expending. While the litterature has grown significantly over the past decades regarding this topic in children, we still lack of studies in adultes that would adress the symptomatology, its course and its functional impairments. Moreover, symptomatologies overlap, comorbidties or social gratification are ones of the many challenges when diagnosing adults. This paper is an attempt to review the recent litterature concerning two specific neurodevelopmental disorders, namely Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), to which we added some considerations about the gifted profile in adults. Based on the latest researches and recommendations from experts, we aimed to propose guidelines for the clinician meant to ease the management of the evaluation process. We hope this work could lead to standardization of evidence-based practices that would eventually benefit the patient.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.013 |
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".