MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049589851 · doi:10.1177/1362361306063288

Screening for autism

2006· article· en· W2049589851 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Wingert, Helena H. Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsSunny Hill Health Centre for Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismPsychologyChecklistFalse positive paradoxClinical psychologySocial communicationDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Screening measures to identify very young children at risk for autism spectrum disorders include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ). To examine the validity of these written questionnaires, parents completed them prior to their child's diagnostic assessment at a tertiary autism clinic. The M-CHAT was given to 84 parents of 2- to 3-year-olds and the SCQ to 94 parents of 4- to 6-year-olds. On both measures sensitivity was higher than specificity with positive predictive values 0.63-0.68. False negatives, or children with autism who were missed by screening, were somewhat higher functioning than true positives. Results were better for parents who spoke English as a second language, contrary to expectations. At this stage of development these tools would be recommended as part of more comprehensive surveillance programmes to identify children in need of further assessment but not to 'screen out' the possibility of 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations143
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutismSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207