Executive functioning in individuals with a history of ASDs who have achieved optimal outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functioning (EF) is examined among children and adolescents once diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but who no longer meet diagnostic criteria. These individuals have average social and language skills, receive minimal school support and are considered to have achieved "optimal outcomes" (OOs). Since residual impairments in these individuals might be expected in deficits central to autism, and in developmentally advanced skills, EF was examined in 34 individuals who achieved OOs, 43 individuals with high-functioning autism (HFA), and 34 typically developing (TD) peers. Groups were matched on age (M = 13.49), gender, and nonverbal IQ (NVIQ) but differed on verbal IQ (VIQ; HFA < TD, OO). On direct assessment, all three groups demonstrated average EF; however, the OO and HFA groups exhibited more impulsivity and less efficient planning and problem-solving than the TD group, and more HFA participants exhibited below average inhibition than did OO and TD participants. Parent-report measures revealed average EF among the OO and TD groups; however, the OO group exhibited more difficulty than the TD group on set-shifting and working memory. HFA participants demonstrated more difficulty on all parent-reported EF domains, with a clinical impairment in attention-shifting. Results suggest that EF in OO appears to be within the average range, even for functions that were impaired among individuals with HFA. Despite their average performance, however, the OO and TD groups differed on measures of impulsivity, set-shifting, problem-solving, working memory, and planning, suggesting that the OO group does not have the above-average EF scores of the TD group despite their high-average IQs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it