Early motor abilities in infants at heightened versus low risk for ASD: A Baby Siblings Research Consortium (BSRC) 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
Research has identified early appearing differences in gross and fine motor abilities in infants at heightened risk (HR) for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) because they are the younger siblings of children with ASD, and it suggests that such differences may be especially apparent among those HR infants themselves eventually diagnosed with ASD. The present study examined overall and item-level performance on the gross (GM) and fine motor (FM) subscales of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) administered at 6 months to a large, geographically diverse sample of HR infants with varying developmental outcomes (ASD, elevated ADOS without ASD, low ADOS without ASD) and to infants with low ASD risk (low risk [LR]). We also explored whether motor abilities assessed at 6 months predicted ASD symptom severity at 36 months. FM (but not GM) performance distinguished all 3 HR groups from LR infants with the weakest performance observed in the HR-Elevated ADOS children, who exhibited multiple differences from both LR and other HR infants in both gross and fine motor skills. Finally, 6-month FM (but not GM) scores significant predicted 36-month ADOS severity scores in the HR group; but no evidence was found of specific early appearing motor signs associated with a later ASD diagnosis. Vulnerabilities in infants' fine and gross motor skills may have significant consequences for later development not only in the motor domain but in other domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it