Early trajectories of motor skills in infant siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delays in motor development are not considered a core feature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Yet, recent studies of infant siblings of children with ASD suggest that early delays in motor skills may be associated with later delays in developmental areas considered to be core features of an ASD diagnosis. While these studies demonstrate the longitudinal association between core features and motor delays observed at single time points, there is considerable interest in studying the trajectories of motor development over the first 3 years of life. To accomplish this, we investigated early trajectories of motor development in a cohort of 499 infant siblings of children with ASD and 176 children with no family history of ASD. Data for the current study were drawn from the prospective, multi-site, Canadian Infant Sibling Study. We evaluated trajectories of fine and gross motor development over the first 3 years using group-based trajectory modeling. Our results show that membership for both fine and gross motor trajectory groups was related to expressive language skills, receptive language skills, ASD symptom severity scores, and diagnostic classification at age 3. These results provide evidence that the trajectory of a child's early motor development may have important prognostic implications in 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".