Down syndrome and childhood apraxia of speech: matching a unique psycholinguistic profile to an effective treatment program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three single subject experiments were conducted to explore the response by individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) to different treatments for the remediation of speech impairments. Although the speech impairment in DS is typically described as dysarthria, a growing body of research suggests that there may be concomitant childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and phonological disorders that explain poor speech accuracy and intelligibility in these individuals. The appropriate treatment to remediate speech impairment in DS may depend upon each individual's psycholinguistic profile. Three single subject randomized experiments were conducted with participants ranging in age from 10-20 years. For each experiment, two treatment conditions were compared to a control condition: the experimental conditions addressed the underlying deficits associated with either CAS (a motor planning impairment) or Inconsistent Phonological Disorder (a phonological planning impairment). High intensity treatment was undertaken with each participant receiving a total of 18 treatment sessions in six to nine weeks. In each study, the results indicate improvement in speech accuracy but with varying response across participants to specific treatment approaches. Follow-up assessments with each participant demonstrate maintenance of learning over time. Each participant's specific response to treatment is discussed in relation to their psycholinguistic profile as revealed by their pre-treatment assessment results.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Single-subject treatment experiments for speech impairment in Down syndrome; the object is a clinical intervention.
The dissertation evaluates speech treatments for people with Down syndrome, not research itself.
Clinical speech therapy experiments for Down syndrome; clinical domain intervention study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".