MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786465443 · doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3482-4

An International Clinical Study of Ability and Disability in Autism Spectrum Disorder Using the WHO-ICF Framework

2018· article· en· W2786465443 on OpenAlexaff
Soheil Mahdi, Katja Albertowski, Omar Almodayfer, Vaia Arsenopoulou, Sara Carucci, José Carlos Dias, Mohammad Khalil, Ane Knüppel, Anika Langmann, Marlene Briciet Lauritsen, Graccielle R. Cunha, Tokio Uchiyama, Nicole Wolff, Melissa Selb, Mats Granlund, Petrus J. de Vries, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum, Sven Bölte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdVetenskapsrådetSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasVINNOVA
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthAutism spectrum disorderChecklistAutismPsychologyHigh-functioning autismClinical psychologyPerspective (graphical)PsychiatryRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the fourth international preparatory study designed to develop International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF, and Children and Youth version, ICF-CY) Core Sets for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Examine functioning of individuals diagnosed with ASD as documented by the ICF-CY in a variety of clinical settings. A cross-sectional study was conducted, involving 11 units from 10 countries. Clinical investigators assessed functioning of 122 individuals with ASD using the ICF-CY checklist. In total, 139 ICF-CY categories were identified: 64 activities and participation, 40 body functions and 35 environmental factors. The study results reinforce the heterogeneity of ASD, as evidenced by the many functional and contextual domains impacting on ASD from a clinical perspective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Autism and Developmental DisordersSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207