MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Changing Epidemiology of Autism

2005· article· en· W2074062819 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Fombonne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyAutismIncidence (geometry)Developmental disorderPervasive developmental disorderAutism spectrum disorderAutistic spectrumAsperger syndromePsychiatryPsychologyIdentification (biology)Clinical psychologyLarge sampleMedicinePathologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews epidemiological studies of autism and related disorders. Study designs and sample characteristics are summarized. Currently, conservative prevalence estimates are: 13/10000 for autistic disorder, 21/10000 for pervasive developmental disorders not otherwise specified, 2.6/10000 for Asperger disorder, and 2/100000 for childhood disintegrative disorder. Newer surveys suggest that the best estimate for the prevalence of all autistic spectrum disorders is close to 0.6%. A detailed analysis of time trends in rates of pervasive developmental disorders in then provided. It is concluded that most of the increase is accounted for by changes in diagnostic concepts and criteria, and by improved identification. Whether or not there is, in addition to these factors, a true increase in the incidence of the disorder cannot be examined from available data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.416
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

Citations404
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207