Non‐ASD outcomes at 36 months in siblings at familial risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD): A baby siblings research consortium (BSRC) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We characterized developmental outcomes of a large sample of siblings at familial high-risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who themselves did not have ASD (n = 859), and low-risk controls with no family history of ASD (n = 473). We report outcomes at age 3 years using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and adaptive functioning on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Around 11% of high-risk siblings had mild-to-moderate levels of developmental delay, a rate higher than the low-risk controls. The groups did not differ in the proportion of toddlers with mild-to-moderate language delay. Thirty percent of high-risk siblings had elevated scores on the ADOS, double the rate seen in the low-risk controls. High-risk siblings also had higher parent reported levels of ASD symptoms on the ADI-R and lower adaptive functioning on the Vineland. Males were more likely to show higher levels of ASD symptoms and lower levels of developmental ability and adaptive behavior than females across most measures but not mild-to-moderate language delay. Lower maternal education was associated with lower developmental and adaptive behavior outcomes. These findings are evidence for early emerging characteristics related to the "broader autism phenotype" (BAP) previously described in older family members of individuals with ASD. There is a need for ongoing clinical monitoring of high-risk siblings who do not have an ASD by age 3 years, as well as continued follow-up into school age to determine their developmental and behavioral outcomes. Autism Res 2017, 10: 169-178. © 2016 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".