MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199578945 · doi:10.1177/13623613211042719

Positive and differential diagnosis of autism in verbal women of typical intelligence: A Delphi study

2021· article· en· W3199578945 on OpenAlex
Julie Cumin, Sandra Peláez, Laurent Mottron

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismPsychologyMedical diagnosisClinical psychologyAutism spectrum disorderChecklistPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnostic criteria for autism are relatively vague, and may lead to over and underdiagnosis when applied without clinical expertise. Indeed, autism is best reliably identified by experienced clinicians who take into account qualitative aspects of the condition. When assessing for autism in women, little guidance exists to support clinicians deciding whether to attribute adaptive difficulties to autism, a psychiatric condition, or both. The purpose of this study was therefore to propose guidelines for clinicians assessing for autism in women. To do this, we aimed to describe the clinical expertise involved in making positive and differential diagnoses of autism in adult women of typical intelligence. We interviewed 20 experienced clinicians from seven countries. We then elaborated Delphi statements summarizing participant views on the topic, which our participants rated. We obtained a final list of 37 suggested clinical guidelines to improve specificity and sensitivity of autism diagnosis in women. Participants had developed individual assessment strategies, although much overlap existed across participants. Participants provided insight to differentiate autism from post-traumatic stress disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder, and underlined the importance of being able to make differential diagnoses particularly in cases where non-autistic people had strongly self-identified with the spectrum. Lay abstract The diagnostic criteria for autism are relatively vague and can lead to both under- and over-diagnosis if applied as a checklist. The highest level of agreement that a person is autistic occurs when experienced clinicians are able to make use of their clinical judgment. However, it is not always clear what this judgment consists of. Given that particular issues exist when assessing for autism in adult women, we wanted to explore how expert clinicians address difficult diagnostic situations in this population. We interviewed 20 experienced psychologists and psychiatrists from seven countries and discussed how they conducted autism assessments in adult women. We then came up with a list of 35 statements that described participant views. Our participants completed an online survey where they rated their agreement with these statements and provided feedback on how the statements were worded and organized. We obtained a final list of 37 suggested clinical guidelines. Participants agreed that diagnostic tools and questionnaires had to be coupled with judgment and expertise. Participants felt that trauma and Borderline Personality Disorder could be difficult to differentiate from autism, and agreed on some ways to address this issue. Participants agreed that self-identification to the autism spectrum was frequent, and that it was important to provide alternative support when they did not ultimately diagnose autism.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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