Scoping Review: Physical Activity and Social Functioning in Young People With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects ~1 in 59 people in North America and diagnoses continue to rise (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Unfortunately, the exact cause of ASD is unknown and therapy remains the primary means of intervention. People with ASD experience social and behavioral deficits associated with the disorder, which affect all aspects of life such as academics, relationships, and physical activity. Research has shown a relationship between physical activity and social skills in typically developing individuals; however, this relationship is less understood in people with ASD. The purpose of this scoping review was to uncover what is known about ASD, physical activity, and social functioning. The authors searched four databases and included 40 primary research articles in the review, most of which demonstrated a relationship between physical activity and social functioning for people with ASD. The relationship appears bidirectional: social functioning influences physical activity (to a lesser extent) and physical activity influences social functioning (to a greater extent). Regrettably, there were many limitations in these articles, such as small sample sizes and the under-representation of females and adults. Therefore, the review highlights several directions for future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".