MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209975159 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13697

Infant vocalizing and phenotypic outcomes in autism: Evidence from the first 2 years

2021· article· en· W3209975159 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Plate, Lisa Yankowitz, Leslie Resorla, Meghan R. Swanson, Shoba S. Meera, Annette Estes, Natasha Marrus, Meredith Cola, Victoria Petrulla, Aubrey Faggen, Juhi Pandey, Sarah Paterson, John R. Pruett, Heather C. Hazlett, Stephen R. Dager, Tanya St. John, Kelly N. Botteron, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum, Joseph Piven, Robert T. Schultz, Julia Parish‐Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute of Mental HealthAutism Science FoundationEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentSimons Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyAutism spectrum disorderAutismDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyTypically developingLanguage developmentAudiologyPediatricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infant vocalizations are early-emerging communicative markers shown to be atypical in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but few longitudinal, prospective studies exist. In this study, 23,850 infant vocalizations from infants at low (LR)- and high (HR)-risk for ASD (HR-ASD = 23, female = 3; HR-Neg = 35, female = 13; LR = 32, female = 10; 80% White; collected from 2007 to 2017 near Philadelphia) were analyzed at 6, 12, and 24 months. At 12 months, HR-ASD infants produced fewer vocalizations than HR-Neg infants. From 6 to 24 months, HR-Neg infants demonstrated steeper vocalization growth compared to HR-ASD and LR infants. Finally, among HR infants, vocalizing at 12 months was associated with language, social phenotype, and diagnosis at age 2. Infant vocalizing is an objective behavioral marker that could facilitate earlier detection of ASD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207