Comparing rates of agreement between different diagnostic criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".