MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404578957 · doi:10.1111/acer.15492

Comparing rates of agreement between different diagnostic criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4404578957 on OpenAlexaff
Graysen Myers, Michael Burd, Marilyn G. Klug, Svetlana Popova, Larry Burd

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcohol Clinical and Experimental Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohen's kappaKappaMedical diagnosisMedicineConfidence intervalFetal alcoholStatisticFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderStatisticsMeta-analysisMathematicsAlcoholPathologyInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnostic accuracy is important in systems used to diagnose common disorders such as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). Currently, no comprehensive study has examined rates of agreement between different diagnostic criteria for FASD. This study estimates the likelihood that a diagnosis of FASD using one set of diagnostic criteria will result in the same diagnosis when compared to different diagnostic criteria. A systematic review was conducted to identify articles reporting on the comparison of two or more diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of FASD. Inclusion criteria required that the study present data that estimated agreement for a diagnosis of FASD or no-FASD between two or more FASD criteria using two-by-two tables or presented data that could be used to generate the tables. Meta-analyses with confidence intervals were included to demonstrate variability in the estimates. Standardized measures of agreement were assessed using the kappa statistic with 95% confidence intervals and the phi coefficient as a measure of correlation between binary outcomes. The search identified six studies reporting on eight different FASD diagnostic criteria. The studies compared agreement between 17 different pairings of the criteria. For individual children, agreement ranged from 53.7% to 91%. The agreement between the eight different diagnostic criteria ranged from 59.4% to 89.5%. The kappa statistic found that five associations had a kappa ranging from 0.6 to 0.8. This study illustrates that comparisons of multiple pairs of diagnostic criteria are likely to result in considerable variation in diagnoses of FASD for individual children and between different criteria. The lack of agreement between these commonly used systems is likely to affect clinical care and studies where diagnosis is a key variable. Large-scale multicenter research is needed to examine factors contributing to variation in diagnostic outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.016
Bibliometrics0.0220.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.375
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcohol Clinical and Experimental ResearchSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207