Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Northeastern Ontario: A Descriptive examination of Who is Assessed, Who Receives a Diagnosis and Who does Not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a larger project that provides unique insight into the profile of Canadians assessed for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) across various diagnostic clinics, the purpose of the current study was to highlight who presents for FASD assessment in Northeastern Ontario, and the related diagnostic outcomes between those who are diagnosed and those who are not. A total of 326 children and youth were included in the overall sample of individuals assessed at the only diagnostic service in the Northeastern Ontario region in Sudbury, Ontario. Specific comparisons between those diagnosed with FASD and those not diagnosed were further explored. Results indicated that functional difficulties, including both neurodevelopmental and mental health impairments, were evident in all individuals, regardless of an FASD diagnosis. However, for individuals who received a diagnosis of FASD, greater mental health concerns and neurodevelopmental impairment beyond what is necessary to receive a diagnosis were noted. While impairment at the clinical level (i.e., 2 or more standard deviations below the mean, as per Canadian FASD Diagnostic Guideline) was lower in those who did not receive a diagnosis, difficulties pertaining to behaviour and mental health were identified. Overall, the results support a multiservice need among those prenatally exposed to alcohol in the region. The findings are discussed in relation to the existing literature on the common outcomes associated with prenatal alcohol exposure, and FASD more specifically. Limitations and implications are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".