Investigation of test characteristics of two screening tools in comparison with a gold standard assessment to detect developmental delay at 36 months: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability of the Rourke Baby Record (Rourke) and the Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS) to detect developmental delay is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine the test characteristics of the Rourke and NDDS compared with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III for detecting developmental delay in high-risk children. METHODS: Three-year-olds were recruited from the IWK Health Centre (Halifax, Nova Scotia). Two cut-points were evaluated (one and two or more areas of concern) from the Rourke and NDDS, and were compared with a score of ≤85 on the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III. RESULTS: The majority (67.7%) of the 31 participants reported no concern. At one area of concern, sensitivity was 75% for both the Rourke and NDDS. When two areas of concern were noted, specificity was 93% for the Rourke and 96% for NDDS. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Rourke and the NDDS appear to be reasonably sensitive and specific, but further investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".