Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the decades since autism was first formally described in the 1940s, there have been major advances in research relating to diagnosis, causation, and treatment approaches for children with this condition. However, research into prognosis, outcomes, or effective interventions for adults with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) is much more limited. In this paper, we review studies of outcome in adulthood. The findings indicate that, as adults, many people with ASD, including those of normal IQ, are significantly disadvantaged regarding employment, social relationships, physical and mental health, and quality of life. Support to facilitate integration within the wider society is frequently lacking, and there has been almost no research into ways of developing more effective intervention programs for adults. Moreover, most of the research on outcome has involved relatively young people in their 20s and 30s-much less is known about outcomes for people with ASD as they reach mid-late adulthood. Systematic follow-up studies from childhood through adulthood are needed if we are to gain a better understanding of trajectories of development over the lifespan, to identify the factors that influence prognosis, and to determine how these factors exert their effects and how they may be modified to ensure a better future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".