MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4376871022 · doi:10.1177/13623613231170280

Trajectory research in children with an autism diagnosis: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4376871022 sur OpenAlex
Stephen J. Gentles, Elise Ng‐Cordell, Michelle C. Hunsche, Alana J. McVey, E. Dimitra Bednar, Michael G. DeGroote, Yun‐Ju Chen, Eric Duku, Connor M. Kerns, Laura Banfield, Péter Szatmári, Stelios Georgiades

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAutism · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAutismPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAutism spectrum disorderTrajectoryClinical psychologyCognitive psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Researchers increasingly employ longitudinal trajectory methods to understand developmental pathways of people on the autism spectrum across the lifespan. By assessing developmental or health-related outcome domains at three or more timepoints, trajectory studies can characterize their shape and varying rates of change over time. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the published breadth of research that uses a trajectory study design to examine development in children (to age 18 years) diagnosed with autism. Using a systematic search and screening procedure, 103 studies were included. This review summarizes methodological characteristics across studies including the varying statistical approaches used. A series of figures maps where published research is available across 10 outcome domains and the ages over which children have been followed. Evidence gaps, informed by the perspectives of the autistic and caregiver stakeholders that were engaged in this review, are discussed. We recommend that future trajectory research addresses the absence of studies from low- and middle-income countries, considers longitudinal assessment of outcome domains that caregivers and autistic people consider meaningful, and plans follow-up periods with assessment timepoints that cover the gaps in ages where more outcome-specific data are needed. Lay Abstract The types of outcomes studied in children on the autism spectrum include clinical characteristics, such as social functioning, communication, language, or autism symptoms. Research that measures these outcomes at multiple timepoints is useful to improve our understanding of what to expect as children develop. In trajectory studies, researchers assess outcomes at three or more timepoints. This method has advantages over two-timepoint studies because it allows researchers to describe changes in the speed of development, such as accelerations, plateaus, or slowdowns. We identified and reviewed 103 published trajectory studies in children (to age 18 years) with an autism diagnosis. Importantly, we did not include studies of treatments or their effects, nor did we summarize the results of studies. Instead, this review summarizes the characteristics of the available published research, including the methods used, the many different outcomes that have been studied over time and the ages over which they have been studied. This summary may be of interest to autistic people and caregivers (parents) who want to know about the existence of research that provides answers about what to expect during an autistic child’s development. We have recommended that future trajectory research efforts try to make up for the lack of studies from low- and middle-income countries; that more attention is given to the following outcomes that are meaningful to caregivers and autistic people; and to try to fill in the age gaps where more outcome-specific data are needed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,819
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,269
Tête enseignante GPT0,476
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle