Clinical assessment of autism in high-risk 18-month-olds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier intervention improves outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), but existing identification tools are at the limits of standardization with 18-month-olds. We assessed potential behavioural markers of ASD at 18 months in a high-risk cohort of infant siblings of children with ASD. Prospective data were collected using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI) on 155 infant siblings and 73 low-risk controls at 18 months. Infants were classified into three groups (ASD sibs, non-ASD sibs, controls) based on blind best-estimate diagnosis at age 3. Fisher's exact tests, followed by discriminant function analyses, revealed that the majority of informative ADOS items came from the social and behavioural domains, and AOSI items measuring behavioural reactivity and motor control contributed additional information. Findings highlight the importance of considering not only social-communication deficits, but also basic dimensions of temperament including state regulation and motor control when assessing toddlers with suspected ASD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".