Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials of pharmacological candidates targeting the core features of autism have largely failed. This is despite evidence linking differences in multiple neurochemical systems to brain function in autism. While this has in part been explained by the heterogeneity of the autistic population, the field has largely relied upon association studies to link brain chemistry to function. The only way to directly establish that a neurotransmitter or neuromodulator is involved in a candidate brain function is to change it and observe a shift in that function. This experimental approach dominates preclinical neuroscience, but not human studies. There is little direct experimental evidence describing how neurochemical systems modulate information processing in the living human brain. Thus, our understanding of how neurochemical differences contribute to neurodiversity is limited, impeding our ability to translate findings from animal studies into humans. Here, we introduce our 'shiftability' paradigm, an approach to bridge the translational gap in autism research. We provide an overview of the guiding principles and methodologies we use to directly test the hypothesis that neurochemical systems function differently in autistic and non-autistic individuals.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".