MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002801503 · doi:10.1521/bumc_2020_84_03

Treatment of anxiety in older adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study

2020· article· en· W3002801503 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Ehrenreich–May, Gregory Simpson, Lindsay M. Stewart, Sarah M. Kennedy, Amelia N. Rowley, Amy L. Beaumont, Michael Alessandri, Eric A. Storch, Elizabeth A. Laugeson, Frederick Frankel, Jeffrey J. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Menninger Clinic · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyAutism spectrum disorderAutismClinical psychologyPsychologyMultiple baseline designPopulationPsychiatryMedicineIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anxiety disorders are commonly comorbid in adolescents and young adults with high-functioning autism. Cognitive-behavioral treatments (CBT) for anxiety, when adapted and expanded to target autism spectrum disorder (ASD) characteristics, may be beneficial, but there is minimal evidence to guide clinicians in their application. This multiple-baseline design study evaluated the initial efficacy of a CBT protocol adapted to address anxiety symptoms and adaptive functioning in this population. Anxiety and ASD symptoms were assessed for six participants at intake, after baseline, posttreatment, and at 1-month follow-up. Parent- and child-reported anxiety was also assessed during baseline and treatment. Visual inspection and reliable change index scores were used to evaluate change. All participants improved on clinician-rated measures of disorder severity, and gains were maintained at follow-up. Results were more equivocal for parent- and self-rated anxiety and parent-rated ASD, partly because of spontaneous changes during baseline.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Menninger ClinicSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207