Diagnostic shifts in autism spectrum disorder can be linked to the fuzzy nature of the diagnostic boundary: a data‐driven approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic shifts at early ages may provide invaluable insights into the nature of separation between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and typical development. Recent conceptualizations of ASD suggest the condition is only fuzzily separated from non-ASD, with intermediate cases between the two. These intermediate cases may shift along a transition region over time, leading to apparent instability of diagnosis. METHODS: We used a cohort of children with high ASD risk, by virtue of having an older sibling with ASD, assessed at 24 months (N = 212) and 36 months (N = 191). We applied machine learning to empirically characterize the classification boundary between ASD and non-ASD, using variables quantifying developmental and adaptive skills. We computed the distance of children to the classification boundary. RESULTS: Children who switched diagnostic labels from 24 to 36 months, in both directions, (dynamic group) had intermediate phenotypic profiles. They were closer to the classification boundary compared to children who had stable diagnoses, both at 24 months (Cohen's d = .52) and at 36 months (d = .75). The magnitude of change in distance between the two time points was similar for the dynamic and stable groups (Cohen's d = .06), and diagnostic shifts were not associated with a large change. At the individual level, a few children in the dynamic group showed substantial change. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that a diagnostic shift was largely due to a slight movement within a transition region between ASD and non-ASD. This fact highlights the need for more vigilant surveillance and intervention strategies. Young children with intermediate phenotypes may have an increased susceptibility to gain or lose their diagnosis at later ages, calling attention to the inherently dynamic nature of early ASD diagnoses.
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 | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".