Prevalence of co-occurring diagnoses in people exposed to alcohol prenatally: Findings from a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) commonly experience co-occurring diagnoses, which are often overlooked and misdiagnosed and have detrimental impacts on accessing appropriate services. The prevalence of these co-occurring diagnoses varies widely in the existing literature and has not been examined in PAE without an FASD diagnosis. METHOD: A search was conducted in five databases and the reference sections of three review papers, finding a total of 2180 studies. 57 studies were included in the final analysis with a cumulative sample size of 29,644. Bayesian modeling was used to determine aggregate prevalence rates of co-occurring disorders and analyze potential moderators. RESULTS: 82 % of people with PAE had a co-occurring diagnosis. All disorders had a higher prevalence in individuals with PAE than the general population with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disorder, and intellectual disability (ID) being the most prevalent. Age, diagnostic status, and sex moderated the prevalence of multiple disorders. LIMITATIONS: While prevalence of disorders is crucial information, it does not provide a direct representation of daily functioning and available supports. Results should be interpreted in collaboration with more individualized research to provide the most comprehensive representation of the experience of individuals with PAE. CONCLUSIONS: Co-occurring diagnoses are extremely prevalent in people with PAE, with older individuals, females, and those diagnosed with FASD being most at risk for having a co-occurring disorder. These findings provide a more rigorous examination of the challenges faced by individuals with PAE than has existed in the literature, providing clinicians with information to ensure early identification and effective treatment of concerns to prevent lifelong challenges.
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 | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".