MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025781463 · doi:10.1017/s0012162200001481

Effect of secretin on children with autism: a randomized controlled trial

2001· article· en· W2025781463 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Dunn‐Geier, Helena H. Ho, Edward Auersperg, David Matthew Doyle, C Matsuba, Elaine Orrbine, Ba’ Pham, Sharon Whiting

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsSunny Hill Health Centre for ChildrenChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaEagle Ridge HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecretinAutismRandomized controlled trialPlaceboSignificant differenceMedicineCompletely randomized designPsychologyClinical psychologyPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the effect of intravenous porcine secretin on autistic behaviours in children aged 2 to 7 years, the effects of secretin on (1) performance on a standardized language measure, and (2) autistic behaviours, as rated by parents and child development professionals was examined. Employing a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, 95 participants were assigned to one of two groups and administered a single dose of either secretin or placebo. A follow-up assessment was conducted 3 weeks after the injection. No significant differences in language or autistic behaviour measures were observed at the 3-week follow-up between the groups. Also, there was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals who improved by > or = 6 points on the language measure at follow-up. This study showed no significant effects of secretin on children with autism. Our results are consistent with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of secretin in children with autism.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations78
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207