Related Experiment Videos
Classification of abnormal neurological outcome
1Faculty of Health Sciences, Canada Research Chair in Childhood Disability, IAHS Building, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton ON, Canada. rosenbau@mcmaster.ca
Insights
Systematic follow-up of high-risk infants requires caution. Avoid assuming developmental variations indicate pathology; observe children over time for accurate assessment, especially concerning cerebral palsy (CP).
Area of Science:
- Neonatal follow-up
- Developmental pediatrics
- Neurodevelopmental disorders
Background:
- High-risk neonates require systematic follow-up.
- Interpreting developmental variations in infants can be biased towards pathology.
- Early diagnosis of developmental disabilities presents significant challenges.
Purpose of the Study:
- To advocate for awareness of biases in interpreting infant development.
- To highlight challenges in early diagnosis of developmental disabilities.
- To promote cautious interpretation of developmental variations, considering natural development and longitudinal observation.
Main Methods:
- Personal reflections and critical analysis of current practices.
- Discussion of challenges in diagnosing developmental disabilities.
- Case illustration using cerebral palsy (CP) diagnosis and classification.
Main Results:
- Awareness of potential biases is crucial in neonatal follow-up.
- Early diagnostic labels for developmental disabilities can be problematic.
- Longitudinal observation is more reliable than single assessments for identifying developmental differences.
Conclusions:
- Interpreting developmental variations in high-risk infants requires careful consideration of natural development and avoiding premature assumptions of pathology.
- Cerebral palsy (CP) diagnosis and classification benefit from a cautious, evidence-based approach over time.
- Systematic follow-up should prioritize understanding individual developmental trajectories rather than solely identifying "abnormalities."
Abstract:
When we engage in the systematic follow-up of high-risk neonates it is important to avoid the temptation to assume that any variations in development in this population reflect 'abnormality.' In this chapter I first present some personal reflections and hobby horses to argue that we need to be aware of our possible biases toward interpreting developmental or functional differences in infants as evidence of developmental pathology. Second, I stress the challenges associated with making early 'diagnoses' of developmental disabilities. Instead I suggest that identification of differences and variations in development should be interpreted cautiously, taking account of natural variations in early development and the chance to observe children over time rather than needing to make a decision on the basis of a single assessment. Finally, I discuss cerebral palsy and illustrate the arguments I have presented with discussion of current thinking about diagnosis and classification of CP.
Related Concept Videos
01:28Traumatic Brain Injury l: Introduction
01:22Epilepsy ll: Types
01:28Disorders of the Nervous Tissue
Homeostatic Imbalances:
Alzheimer's disease manifests as a gradual decline in memory and cognitive abilities, attributed to the buildup of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain.
Parkinson's disease arises from the...
01:13Seizures: Classification
Seizures are typically classified into two main categories: focal and generalized seizures.
Focal Seizures
Focal seizures originate from specific regions of the brain. These seizures are further sub-classified into two types:
01:17Classification of Illness
An illness is a response to a disease in which the person's level of functioning is changed compared with a previous level. The general classification of illness includes acute and chronic.
Acute illness is severe and...