Family screening for neurodevelopmental problems and its associations with child cognitive function enable tailored treatment for childhood obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify neurodevelopmental disorders in children with obesity, and investigate associations to cognitive functions as well as parents' self-reported neurodevelopmental problems. METHODS: Eighty children were included at two outpatient obesity clinics in Sweden 2018-2019. Of these, 50 children without previously diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders were screened, and so were their parents. Children who screened positive for neurodevelopmental problems were referred to a specialised psychiatry unit for further diagnosis. Test results of cognitive functioning were compared with the norm and between study groups by neurodevelopmental diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the screened families, 17/50 children were diagnosed by the psychiatric unit with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and 15/82 parents screened positive for neurodevelopmental problems. Having a mother who screened positive for neurodevelopmental problems was associated with child ADHD (p < 0.05). The children's full-scale intelligence quotient (92.86 ± 12.01, p < 0.001) and working memory index (90.62 ± 12.17, p < 0.001) were lower than the norm. Working memory index was lower in children with ADHD compared to without ADHD: 84.76 ± 9.58 versus 94.09 ± 12.29 (p ≤ 0.01). Executive constraints were associated with verbal deviances. CONCLUSION: Increased awareness is needed about the overlap between neurodevelopmental problems and obesity in obesity clinics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".