Examining the impact of social stressor stimuli in eliciting physiological reactivity in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Stress is not experienced the same by everyone. Some individuals, such as individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), are at risk of heightened sensitivity to stress responses. ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder commonly characterized by deficits in social communication and social interaction. Among different stressor stimuli, social stressors particularly worth our attention due to the social and communication challenges inherent to ASD. This study aims to systematically evaluate different social stressor stimuli in eliciting physiological reactivity in ASD, focusing on the children and adolescent population. Methods: We designed a study protocol for this study and submitted it to PROSPERO for systematic review registration. Any studies with children and adolescents with ASD between the ages of 0-18 in clinical and community settings will be included. All types of social stressor interventions will be included. The intended outcomes will not be restrictive. The outcome of interest will include studies with physiological activity of the participants being measured, e.g., measures related to autonomic functioning, electrodermal functioning, and cortisol level. The primary literature sources will be across four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. The second source of literature will be across grey literature, including ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and across clinical trial registries. Hand searching of references will be performed on the reference lists of all included studies. Two volunteers pursuing postgraduate-level studies will independently search and screen potential studies for eligibility. Finally, all references considered by hand-searching will be reviewed by two researchers. The methodological quality of the research will be assessed by adopting the quality assessment used by a previous study. The assessment consists of four primary categories: descriptive validity, internal validity, external validity, and statistical conclusion validity. Discussion: Considering the inconsistent methodologies and findings in previous studies, a systematic review in this area is required. We are not aware of another systematic review discussing this specific issue. The findings will have important implications for clinical practice and research studies. We anticipate that the results will be of interest to multiple audiences, including the individuals with ASD, their families and caregivers, healthcare professionals, educators, and researchers. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021244039
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 | 0.034 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.002 |
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".