Awareness of russian doctors about autism spectrum disorders (results of sociological research)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim.Identification of awareness in doctors of different specialties (pediatricians, child psychiatrists, neurologists) on a wide range of issues of diagnosis, etiology, therapy of children with ASD. Methods.There was a survey conducted on the authors questionnaire. It was answered by 400doctors working in the large, medium, and small cities and towns in 35subjects of the Russian Federation, representing all Federal districts. In the sample there were pediatricians (53%), psychiatrists (24.2%), neurologists (14.7%), 8.2% did not specify a specialty. 89.2% of respondents are women and 10.2% are men. Results.70% of doctors believe that the number of children with ASD has increased dramatically in recent years. A fifth of respondents found it difficult to answer, 10% said that the number remained the same. The distribution of responses to the question by the profile of specialists indicates the relationship of variables. Neuropathologists and psychiatrists more often chose the answer option increased sharply (2=32.528, p0.01). The distribution of different specialists opinions on the factors that cause changes in the number of children with ASD in society did not have statistically significant differences. About 40% of pediatricians, neurologists, psychiatrists, and other doctors chose the factors improvement of quality in diagnostic procedures and increasing availability of medical care; about a third noted reducing child mortality and, as a result, increasing diversity, about a quarter chose an environmental impact, changing the rules of medical statistics. It is alarming that when asked about the impact of vaccinations on the occurrence of autism, only 46.9% indicated that this is a myth, about 2.8% indicated that autism is a reaction to vaccination, the majority of respondents (50.3%) chose the option that there is not enough data in medicine to confirm or disprove this position. Conclusions.The results of the study allow us to conclude that it is necessary to increase the awareness of doctors about the current state of research on the problem of ASD. Educational programs are needed taking into account not only medical data but also approaches developed in the social Sciences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".