Behavioural markers for autism in infancy: Scores on the Autism Observational Scale for Infants in a prospective study of at-risk siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated early behavioural markers of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using the Autism Observational Scale for Infants (AOSI) in a prospective familial high-risk (HR) sample of infant siblings (N=54) and low-risk (LR) controls (N=50). The AOSI was completed at 7 and 14 month infant visits and children were seen again at age 24 and 36 months. Diagnostic outcome of ASD (HR-ASD) versus no ASD (HR-No ASD) was determined for the HR sample at the latter timepoint. The HR group scored higher than the LR group at 7 months and marginally but non-significantly higher than the LR group at 14 months, although these differences did not remain when verbal and nonverbal developmental level were covaried. The HR-ASD outcome group had higher AOSI scores than the LR group at 14 months but not 7 months, even when developmental level was taken into account. The HR-No ASD outcome group had scores intermediate between the HR-ASD and LR groups. At both timepoints a few individual items were higher in the HR-ASD and HR-No ASD outcome groups compared to the LR group and these included both social (e.g. orienting to name) and non-social (e.g. visual tracking) behaviours. AOSI scores at 14 months but not at 7 months were moderately correlated with later scores on the autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) suggesting continuity of autistic-like behavioural atypicality but only from the second and not first year of life. The scores of HR siblings who did not go on to have ASD were intermediate between the HR-ASD outcome and LR groups, consistent with the notion of a broader autism phenotype.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".