Examining the effect of a wearable, anxiety detection technology on improving the awareness of anxiety signs in autism spectrum disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety is prevalent in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and can negatively impact physical and mental health. Self-awareness of anxiety signs is a key barrier to success of anxiety interventions for many children. METHODS: To address this, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess whether the Anxiety Meter, a wearable, real-time anxiety detection technology, can improve awareness of anxiety symptoms and the initiation of relaxation techniques in children with ASD. Twenty-eight children with ASD were trained on the use of the Anxiety Meter and taught a diaphragmatic breathing relaxation technique over three visits. On the fourth visit, participants were randomized to either receive feedback of their anxiety level or no feedback from the Anxiety Meter while completing a stress-eliciting task (public speaking) and asked to engage in deep breathing if anxious. RESULTS: Feedback from the Anxiety Meter was associated with increased likelihood of initiating deep breathing in response to anxiety. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the small sample size, imbalanced group matching for IQ and sex, and the controlled-laboratory settings which limit the statistical power and generalizability of the results to real-world settings. CONCLUSIONS: Although these results are limited by the relatively small sample size, they support the feasibility of using a wearable device and real-time feedback to improve anxiety symptom awareness. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02160691, registration date: 06/05/2014.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".