MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013043687 · doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01320-4

Introduction and methods of the evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of autism spectrum disorder by the Italian National Institute of Health

2020· article· en· W3013043687 on OpenAlexafffund
Gian Paolo Morgano, Francesca Fulceri, Franco Nardocci, Corrado Barbui, Giovanni Ostuzzi, Davide Papola, Laura Maria Fatta, Alice Josephine Fauci, Daniela Coclite, Antonello Napoletano, Franco De Crescenzo, Gian Loreto D’Alò, Michela Cinquini, Primiano Iannone, Holger J. Schünemann, María Luisa Scattoni

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreImpactCochrane
FundersMinistero della SaluteMcMaster University
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderGuidelineMultidisciplinary approachPsychological interventionGrading (engineering)MedicineAutismHealth careMEDLINEPsychologyNursingPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neuro-developmental disorder that affects communication and behavior with a prevalence of approximately 1% worldwide. Health outcomes of interventions for ASD are largely Participant Reported Outcomes (PROs). Specific guidelines can help support the best care for people with ASD to optimize these health outcomes but they have to adhere to standards for their development to be trustworthy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to describe the new methodological standards of the Italian National Institute of Health and novel aspects of this guideline development process. This article will serve as a reference standard for future guideline development in the Italian setting. METHODS: We applied the new standards of the Italian National Institute of Health to the two guidelines on diagnosis and management of children/adolescents and adults with ASD, with a focus on the scoping, panel composition, management of conflict of interest, generation and prioritization of research questions, early stakeholders' involvement, and PROs. Recommendations are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. RESULTS: Following a public application process, the ISS established two multidisciplinary panels including people with ASD and/or their caregivers. Seventy-nine research questions were identified as potentially relevant for the guideline on children and adolescents with ASD and 31 for the one on adults with ASD. Questions deemed to have the highest priority were selected for inclusion in the guidelines. Other stakeholders valued their early involvement in the process which will largely focus on PROs. The panels then successfully piloted the development of recommendations using the methodological standards and process set by the ISS with a focus on PROs. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we describe the development of practice guidelines that focus on PROs for the diagnosis and management of ASD based on novel methods for question prioritization and stakeholder involvement. The recommendations allow for the adoption or adaptation to international settings.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.229
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.229
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.811
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.107 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Quality of Life OutcomesSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207