Clinical trials in autism spectrum disorder: evidence, challenges and future directions
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this manuscript is to review the evidence generated by clinical trials of pharmaceuticals in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), describe challenges in the conduct of such trials, and discuss future directions RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical trials in ASD have produced several compounds to adequately support the pharmacological treatment of associated symptom domains: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and alpha agonists), irritability/aggression (risperidone and aripiprazole), sleep (melatonin), and weight gain associated with atypical antipsychotic use (metformin). However, there is no evidence yet to support the routine use of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of core symptom domains. Challenges in the field include biological heterogeneity within ASD, lack of biomarkers that clarify biological heterogeneity or predict response to treatment, lack of data across the lifespan, and suboptimal outcome measures. SUMMARY: Several compounds have evidence for the treatment of co-occurring symptoms in children and youth with ASD, although pharmacological interventions for core symptoms are still lacking. Identifying the various biologies underling ASD and developing biomarkers that stratify biologically homogeneous populations are both necessary to realize the promise of precision medicine in ASD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it