The HEADS‐ED under 6: Piloting a new communimetric mental health and developmental screening and triage tool for young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communimetric screening tools help clinicians identify and communicate their patient's areas of need and the corresponding level of action. However, few tools exist to identify mental health (MH) and developmental needs in young children. We aimed to implement and evaluate a new communimetric MH and developmental screening tool for children under 6 (HEADS-ED Under 6) in a community MH agency in Ontario, Canada. Using a prospective cohort design, we explored how intake workers used the HEADS-ED Under 6 screening tool from November 2019 to March 2021. 94.5% of children (n = 535/566) were screened with the HEADS-ED at intake. Total HEADS-ED scores and domains were used to inform the intensity of recommended services. Three clinical domains (Eating & sleeping, Development, speech/language/motor, and Emotions & behaviors) also independently predicted a priority recommendation. The tool showed good concordance with the InterRAI Early Years for children under 4 years old. The HEADS-ED Under 6 was a brief, easy, and valid screening tool, and can be used to identify important MH and developmental domains early, rate level of action/impairment, communicate severity of needs, and help determine intensity of service required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".