MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171584378 · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01830-2

Repetitive and restricted behaviours and anxiety in autism spectrum disorder: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3171584378 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tegan Sellick, Alexandra Ure, Katrina Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash University
KeywordsAnxietyAutism spectrum disorderPsycINFOCINAHLMedicineMEDLINEClinical psychologySocial anxietyMeta-analysisSystematic reviewAutismPsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder defined by persistent deficits in social functioning and the presence of restricted and repetitive behaviours (RRBs). RRBs refer to four subtypes of behaviour including repetitive movements, speech, or use of objects; insistence on sameness; restricted interests; and sensory processing abnormalities. Many individuals with ASD also experience anxiety, which compounds ASD-related difficulties and inhibits daily functioning. RRBs have been found to be positively associated with anxiety; however, our understanding of the interplay between RRB subtypes and anxiety remains unclear. Thus, the current review aims to clarify the association between RRBs and anxiety by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we will search five databases: CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Articles included in the review will have their titles, abstracts, and full texts reviewed by two independent authors and their methodological quality assessed via the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses will then be conducted to calculate the pooled association between RRB subtypes and anxiety. Sensitivity analyses will also be conducted to assess the potential impact of bias, missing data, outliers, and methodological differences on this relationship. Additionally, this review will collate the factors which may influence the anxiety-RRB relationship to help identify who is most vulnerable to developing anxiety. DISCUSSION: This will be the first review to examine the association between the four subtypes of RRBs and anxiety in individuals with ASD. Understanding this relationship, and the factors associated with this, may help clinicians understand the different underpinnings and presentations of anxiety within this population with potential implications for assessment and treatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020185434.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0310.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207