MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114585787 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13485

Assessment of Autism Symptoms From 6 to 18 Months of Age Using the Autism Observation Scale for Infants in a Prospective High-Risk Cohort

2020· article· en· W3114585787 on OpenAlexafffund
Lonnie Zwaigenbaum, Susan E. Bryson, Jessica Brian, Isabel M. Smith, Lori‐Ann R. Sacrey, Vickie Armstrong, Wendy Roberts, Péter Szatmári, Nancy Garon, Tracy Vaillancourt, Caroline Roncadin

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMount Allison UniversityHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersKids Brain Health NetworkStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsAutismAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyCohortPediatricsProspective cohort studyMedical diagnosisPervasive developmental disorderClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives were to characterize behavioral signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in younger siblings of diagnosed children (high-risk; HR) and examine classification features of the Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI). Participants (501 HR and 180 low-risk [LR]) were assessed between 6 and 18 months using the AOSI and at age 3 for ASD diagnoses. Total AOSI scores differentiated HR infants later diagnosed with ASD starting at 12 months. ROC analyses identified 12- and 18-month cutoff scores associated with 0.52 sensitivity and 0.74 specificity and 0.73 sensitivity and 0.65 specificity, respectively. Although classification accuracy does not support use as a standalone screen, the AOSI identifies features associated with ASD starting at 6 months and differentiates HR infants with ASD by 12 months.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207