15 Predictive validity of two developmental screening tools at the 18-month visit and neurodevelopmental consultation at an average age of 8 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) recommends an enhanced 18-month well-baby visit incorporating a developmental screening tool to stimulate discussion with parents, and notes that a widely used tool is the Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS). For early detection of autism spectrum disorder, the CPS notes that a commonly used screening tool is the Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC). Objectives To examine the predictive validity of the ITC and NDDS at the 18-month visit using later neurodevelopmental consultation as the criterion measure; and examine whether positive developmental screening was associated with health care utilization (HCU). Design/Methods Using a prospective design, parents completed the ITC and the NDDS at the 18-month visit in primary care practices. Seven types of HCU were collected from health administrative databases, via linkage using the child’s health insurance number, including: neurodevelopmental consultation, special paediatric consultation, scheduled primary care visit billings, unscheduled primary care or minor visit billings, other non-primary care visit billings, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. Covariates included child and family characteristics. We calculated screening test properties (using neurodevelopmental consultation as the criterion) and used multivariable negative binomial regression to estimate rate ratios (RR) for each of the 7 types of HCU. Results For both the ITC (n=1460) and NDDS (n=802) cohorts, mean age at screening was 18 months and mean age at follow up was 8 years. Of the ITC cohort, 11% were screen positive, 2.6% had a neurodevelopmental consultation. A positive ITC had 40% sensitivity (95% CI 24%-57%), 90% specificity (95% CI 88%-91%), 10% false positive rate (95% CI 9%-12%). A positive ITC was associated with 6 of 7 types of HCU, including neurodevelopmental consultation (RR=2.78, 95% CI 1.37-5.67). Of the NDDS cohort, 36% were screen positive, 2.5% had a neurodevelopmental consultation. A positive NDDS had a sensitivity of 50% (95% CI 27%-73%), specificity of 65% (95% CI 61%-68%), false positive rate of 35% (95% CI 31%-40%). A positive NDDS was associated with only 1 of 7 types of HCU: unscheduled primary care or minor visit billings 1.24 (95% CI 1.01, 1.53, p=0.04). Conclusion The predictive validity of the ITC was stronger than the NDDS due to high specificity and low false positive rates. The low sensitivity of the ITC is similar to other screening tools used at 18 months, highlighting the importance of ongoing developmental surveillance. The false positive rate of the NDDS is unacceptably high for a screening tool.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".