Middle‐childhood executive functioning mediates associations between early‐childhood autism symptoms and adolescent mental health, academic and functional outcomes in autistic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Executive functioning (EF) varies in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and is associated with clinical symptoms, academic, and adaptive functioning. Here, we examined whether middle-childhood EF mediates associations between early-childhood autism symptoms and adolescent outcomes in children with ASD. METHODS: The Pathways in ASD Cohort comprising children recruited at the time of ASD diagnosis (at 2-4 years-of-age) and followed prospectively across eight subsequent timepoints over ~10 years was used. A subset of Pathways participants (n = 250) with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)-Parent Form data from at least one timepoint when participants were school-aged was analyzed. A mediation framework was used to examine whether BRIEF-measured EF across age 7-10 years (middle-childhood) mediated associations between early-childhood autism symptoms (measured using the parent-report Social Responsiveness Scale across age 2-6 years) and clinical, academic, and functional outcomes, indexed at age >10-11.8 years (early-adolescence) using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)-Internalizing and Externalizing Scales, Academic Performance from the Teacher's Report Form, and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Models were rerun substituting clinician-rated and teacher-rated measures, where possible. RESULTS: ) effect sizes ranged from large to small. Model findings were stable across raters. Middle-childhood EF did not mediate associations between early-childhood autism symptoms and adolescent internalizing behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with an ASD diagnosis, middle-childhood EF may be one pathway through which early-childhood autism symptoms influence a variety of outcomes in early-adolescence. An experimental study targeting middle-childhood EF to improve adolescent academic, emotional/behavioral, and adaptive functioning is needed to evaluate the clinical meaningfulness of these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".