A Pause, Not a Stop: Language Regression in Toddlers at High Familial Likelihood of Autism
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Language development, a core pillar of social communication, has variable trajectories in autism that include a regression or loss of skills in roughly 20% of autistic individuals. Language regression is most frequently identified through parent report but can also be observed as a decrease in raw scores on a repeated language assessment (measure-defined). Later language outcomes after regression have been observed to be highly variable, but not lower than children without a language regression. The current study explores rates of parent-reported and measure-defined language regression in a large sample of infants at high familial likelihood of autism due to having an older autistic sibling. Among all participants at high familial likelihood for autism ( n =428), parent-reported regression was observed in 2.8% ( n =12) and was associated with 2.77 times higher odds of receiving an autism diagnosis. Measure-defined regression was observed in 8% ( n =36) and was associated with 1.21 times higher odds of autism diagnosis. These rates of regression are expectedly lower than estimates collected in autistic samples. Neither of these elevated odds was statistically significant and there was low concordance between these groups with only one participant present in both. Nearest-neighbor comparison samples of non-autistic infants at high and low likelihood for autism without language regression were selected to assess differences in language growth trajectories associated with regression. Infants with parent-reported language regression showed comparable language development to a matched high-likelihood sample while infants with measure-defined language regression showed slower overall language development than matched peers. Taken together, our results show that parent-report and direct measurement of regression capture unique aspects of child language development that may not be predictive of an autism diagnosis but may indicate delayed language growth in early toddlerhood. These language outcomes support previous findings of wide heterogeneity among those with regression and continued language growth after loss of skills. Key Points Language regression can be captured through parent-report or decrease in raw scores on repeated language assessment and is reported in approximately 20% of autistic toddlers. Most research on language regression uses retrospective report of regression in autistic children, but this study prospectively examines regression in toddlers at high familial likelihood for autism who do and do not receive later diagnoses. Parent-reported and measure-defined regression in this high-likelihood sample have low concordance indicating that these may be different events in language development. The presence of language regression was not associated with significantly higher odds of receiving an autism diagnosis. Children who exhibit language regression continue growing and developing language and those with parent-reported regression display comparable language skills to children without language regression at three years of age.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».