Motor development in children at risk of autism: A follow-up study of infant siblings
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
Recently, evidence of poor or atypical motor skills in autism spectrum disorder has led some to argue that motor impairment is a core feature of the condition. The current study uses a longitudinal prospective design to assess the development of motor skills of 20 children at increased risk of developing autism spectrum disorder, who were recruited and tested at 9 and 40 months of age, on the basis of having an older sibling diagnosed with the condition. All children completed a range of motor, face processing, IQ and diagnostic assessments at a follow-up visit (aged 5-7 years), providing a detailed profile of development in this group from a number of standardised, parental report and experimental measures. A higher proportion of children than expected demonstrated motor difficulties at the follow-up visit and those highlighted by parental report as having poor motor skills as infants and toddlers were also more likely to have lower face processing scores and elevated autism-related social symptoms at 5-7 years, despite having similar IQ levels. These data lend support to the argument that early motor difficulties may be a risk factor for later motor impairment as well as differences in social communication and cognition, traits that are related to autism spectrum disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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