MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161974810 · doi:10.3390/brainsci11060678

Patterns of Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Video Recording Study. Preliminary Report

2021· article· en· W3161974810 on OpenAlexaff
Enzo Grossi, Elisa Caminada, Michela Goffredo, Beatrice Vescovo, Tristana Castrignano, Daniele Piscitelli, Giulio Valagussa, Marco Franceschini, Franco Vanzulli

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinistero della Salute
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderAutismPsychologyStereotypyAudiologyCross-sectional studyCorrelationClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeurosciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Several instruments have been proposed to investigate restricted, repetitive behaviors (RRBs) in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Systematic video observations may overcome questionnaire and interview limitations to investigate RRBs. This study aimed to analyze stereotypic patterns through video recordings and to determine the correlation between the number and appearance of RRBs to ASD severity. Methods: Twenty health professionals wearing a body cam recorded 780 specific RRBs during everyday activities of 67 individuals with ASD (mean age: 14.2 ± 3.72 years) for three months. Each stereotypy was classified according to its complexity pattern (i.e., simple or complex) based on body parts and sensory channels involved. Results: The RRBs spectrum for each subject ranged from one to 33 different patterns (mean: 11.6 ± 6.82). Individuals with a lower number of stereotypies shown a lower ASD severity compared to subjects with a higher number of stereotypies (p = 0.044). No significant differences were observed between individuals exhibiting simple (n = 40) and complex patterns (n = 27) of stereotypies on ASD severity, age, sex, and the number of stereotypes. Conclusions: This study represents the first attempt to systematically document expression patterns of RRBs with a data-driven approach. This may provide a better understanding of the pathophysiology and management of RRBs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207