MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structural and Functional Neuroimaging of Restricted and Repetitive Behavior in Autism Spectrum Disorder

2015· article· en· W2070165818 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jenna Traynor, Geoffrey B. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingAutism spectrum disorderNeurosciencePsychologyFunctional connectivityFunctional neuroimagingAutismDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A prominent symptom of Autism Spectrum Disorder includes restricted and repetitive behaviours. This symptom has been divided into three subtypes: repetitive motor behaviour, insistence on sameness and circumscribed interests. In the past, the neural correlates of these behaviours have been largely understudied. More recently, neuroimaging studies have pointed to a number of neural networks that may underlay these behaviours. However, results from this work have been varied and remain difficult to integrate. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent neuroimaging studies on restricted and repetitive behaviours in autism, and to provide an organized framework that will permit a clearer understanding of the neural correlates of these behaviours. Using a developmental perspective, this review will identify that there are distinct and overlapping neural networks that are associated with repetitive motor behaviour, insistence on sameness and circumscribed interests. In addition, this review will identify a series of executive and affective function tasks that have proven efficacious in the study of repetitive behaviour.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207