MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leber's congenital amaurosis: is there an autistic component?

2007· article· en· W1967316502 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa Fazzi, M. Rossi, Sabrina Signorini, Giorgio Rossi, P. E. Bianchi, G. Lanzi

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmaurosisComponent (thermodynamics)MedicineAutismPsychologyOptometryPsychiatryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is much evidence in the literature suggesting that children with congenital blindness can also present autistic like features. The aetiopathogenetic and clinical significance of this association is still unclear. Given the central role played by vision in development, we set out to establish the significance of autistic-like behaviours in children with early-onset severe visual impairment. Our sample comprised 24 children (13 males, 11 females; mean age 5y 2mo; range 2-11y) affected by Leber's congenital amaurosis (LCA). The results of our administration of a modified Childhood Autism Rating Scale--excluding item VII (Visual Responsiveness)--showed that only four of the children gave an overall score indicating the presence of autism (moreover, of mild/moderate degree). Hardly any of the children in our LCA sample presented major dysfunctions in their relationships with other people or in their social and emotional responsiveness, thus allowing us to exclude a genuine comorbidity with a picture of autism. Indeed, the risk facing the visually impaired child seems to concern their early interactive experiences, which may be affected by their inability to connect with others, and may be prevented through the development of specific strategies of intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207