MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131779321 · doi:10.1007/s40489-021-00237-y

Parent Experiences of Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis: a Scoping Review

2021· review· en· W3131779321 on OpenAlexaff
A Makino, Laura R. Hartman, Gillian King, Pui Ying Wong, Melanie Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueReview Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderPsychologySession (web analytics)Qualitative researchAutismClinical psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this review was to identify the quantity, breadth, and methodological characteristics of literature examining parent perspectives of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, synthesize key research findings, and highlight gaps in the current literature. A systematic search was conducted for the period January 1994–February 2020. One hundred and twenty-two articles underwent data extraction. The majority of studies took place in Europe and North America in high-income countries. Over half of the studies used qualitative methodology. Four key components of the diagnostic experience were identified: journey to assessment, assessment process, delivery of the diagnosis and feedback session, and provision of information, resources, and support. Themes of parental emotions and parental satisfaction with the diagnostic process were also found.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations107
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview Journal of Autism and Developmental DisordersSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207