Patterns of Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Video Recording Study. Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".