Patterns of autism symptoms: hidden structure in the ADOS and ADI-R instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We simultaneously revisited the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) with a comprehensive data-analytics strategy. Here, the combination of pattern-analysis algorithms and extensive data resources (n = 266 patients aged 7-49 years) allowed identifying coherent clinical constellations in and across ADI-R and ADOS assessments widespread in clinical practice. Our clustering approach revealed low- and high-severity patient groups, as well as a group scoring high only in the ADI-R domains, providing quantitative contours for the widely assumed autism subtypes. Sparse regression approaches uncovered the most clinically predictive questionnaire domains. The social and communication domains of the ADI-R showed convincing performance to predict the patients' symptom severity. Finally, we explored the relative importance of each of the ADI-R and ADOS domains conditioning on age, sex, and fluid IQ in our sample. The collective results suggest that (i) identifying autism subtypes and severity for a given individual may be most manifested in the ADI-R social and communication domains, (ii) the ADI-R might be a more appropriate tool to accurately capture symptom severity, and (iii) the ADOS domains were more relevant than the ADI-R domains to capture sex differences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".