Attachment security differs by later autism spectrum disorder: A prospective study
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
Although difficulties with social relationships are key to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), no previous study has examined infant attachment security prior to ASD diagnosis. We prospectively assessed attachment security at 15 months in high-risk infants with later ASD (high-risk/ASD, n = 16), high-risk infants without later ASD (high-risk/no-ASD, n = 40), and low-risk infants without later ASD (low-risk/no-ASD, n = 39) using the Strange Situation Procedure. High-risk/ASD infants were disproportionately more likely to be classified as insecure (versus secure) and more likely to be classified as insecure-resistant (versus secure or avoidant) than high-risk/no-ASD and low-risk/no-ASD infants. High-risk infants with insecure-resistant attachments were over nine times more likely to receive an ASD diagnosis than high-risk infants with secure attachments. Insecure-resistant attachment in high-risk infants suggests a propensity toward negative affect with the parent in conditions of stress. Insecure-resistant attachment may prove useful as a potential early index of propensity toward ASD diagnosis in high-risk siblings, while insecure-resistant attachment in the context of emergent autism may contribute to difficulties experienced by children with ASD and their families.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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