Can Autism Be Diagnosed with Artificial Intelligence? A Narrative Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics with deep learning models have become popular in computer-aided diagnosis and have outperformed human experts on many clinical tasks. Specifically, radiomic models based on artificial intelligence (AI) are using medical data (i.e., images, molecular data, clinical variables, etc.) for predicting clinical tasks such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In this review, we summarized and discussed the radiomic techniques used for ASD analysis. Currently, the limited radiomic work of ASD is related to the variation of morphological features of brain thickness that is different from texture analysis. These techniques are based on imaging shape features that can be used with predictive models for predicting ASD. This review explores the progress of ASD-based radiomics with a brief description of ASD and the current non-invasive technique used to classify between ASD and healthy control (HC) subjects. With AI, new radiomic models using the deep learning techniques will be also described. To consider the texture analysis with deep CNNs, more investigations are suggested to be integrated with additional validation steps on various MRI sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it