Systematic review and guide to management of core and psychiatric symptoms in youth with autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based guidance of clinical decision-making for the management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is lacking, particularly for co-occurring psychiatric symptoms. This review evaluates treatment evidence for six common symptom targets in children/adolescents with ASD and provides a resource to facilitate application of the evidence to clinical practice. METHOD: A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high-quality systematic reviews published between 2007 and 2016, focused on: social interaction/communication impairment, stereotypic/repetitive behaviours, irritability/agitation, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, mood or anxiety symptoms, and sleep difficulties. We then completed qualitative evaluation of high-quality systematic reviews/meta-analyses and quantitative evaluation of recently published RCTs not covered by prior comprehensive systematic reviews. RESULTS: Recently published RCTs focused on social interaction and communication impairment (trials = 32) using psychosocial interventions. Interventions for irritability/agitation (trials = 16) were mainly pharmacological. Few RCTs focused on other symptom targets (trials = 2-5/target). Integration of these results with our qualitative review indicated that few established treatment modalities exist, and available evidence is limited by small studies with high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Given the current evidence-base, treatment targets must be clearly defined, and a systematic approach to intervention trials in children/adolescents with ASD must be undertaken with careful consideration of the limitations of safety/efficacy data.
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 | 0.018 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.010 |
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".