How do the neurocognitive profiles of FASD and complex trauma compare in the pediatric population?: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to compare the neurocognitive profiles of children and youth diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) to those of children and youth diagnosed with complex trauma. INTRODUCTION: The neurocognitive challenges resulting from prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) have been defined by the FASD diagnosis. Complex trauma exposure, in the form of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), is associated with similar neurocognitive deficits. Recent evidence suggests ACE exposures to be higher in individuals with FASD as compared to non-FASD controls which warrants a closer look at the overlap between the neurocognitive deficits associated with FASD and complex trauma. A more robust understanding comparing the neurocognitive profiles of FASD and complex trauma can guide assessment, diagnosis, and interventions to support the long-term management of youth with cognitive impairments. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will assess various studies that evaluate the neurocognitive profiles of FASD and complex trauma amongst the pediatric population (aged 0-18). Complex trauma will be defined as multiple interpersonal traumatic events that happen in childhood. The context of this review is pediatric patients diagnosed with FASD or exposed to complex trauma. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Scopus and Google Scholar. Additionally, will conduct backwards and forwards citation searching of all included sources. Title and abstract screening and full-text review will be performed by at least two independent reviewers. Data extraction will be performed using a tool developed for this review. The results will be presented in a narrative and tabular format.
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 | 0.091 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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".