Parent and clinician agreement regarding early behavioral signs in 12‐ and 18‐month‐old infants at‐risk of autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent and clinician agreement regarding early behavioral signs of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children from a high-risk cohort (siblings of children diagnosed with ASD, n = 188) was examined. Infants were assessed prospectively at 12 and 18 months of age using the clinician administered Autism Observational Scale for Infants (AOSI) and the Autism Parent Screen for Infants (APSI) and underwent a blind independent diagnostic assessment for ASD at 36 months of age. Direct comparison of parent and clinician ratings showed poor agreement on all early behavioral signs, with parent-reported symptoms being better able to differentiate between children with and without ASD at both 12 and 18 months of age compared to clinician observations during a brief office visit. The results suggest that parents may detect some clinically informative behaviors based on their day-to-day observations more readily than do clinicians during brief clinical assessments, a result that needs to be replicated in a non-sibling cohort. Autism Res 2018, 11: 539-547. © 2018 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. LAY SUMMARY: Parents of children at high-risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD; have an older sibling with ASD) and clinicians were compared on their reporting of 19 early signs of autism. Direct comparison of parent and clinician ratings showed poor agreement on all early behavioral signs, with parent-reported symptoms being better able to differentiate between children with and without ASD at both 12 and 18 months of age compared to clinician observations during a brief office visit. This suggests that parents may have important information regarding early development of their high-risk child.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".