Predictors of language regression and its association with subsequent communication development in children with autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Language regression, broadly defined as the loss of acquired language skills in early childhood, is a distinctive feature of autism. Little is known about the factors underlying regression or the prognosis of children who exhibit regression. We examine potential predictors of language regression and test its association with language development in a prospective longitudinal sample of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from diagnosis to age 10 years. METHODS: We analysed data from Pathways in ASD, a prospective longitudinal study of 421 children enrolled around the time of an autism diagnosis between 2 and 5 years. Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised data were available for 408 children, of whom 90 (22%) were classified as having language regression. RESULTS: Demographic and other health factors including caregiver education, family income, child sex, reported seizures, and age of enrolment did not differ between children with and without language regression. Children with language regression walked earlier and attained first words sooner than those without regression. However, both groups attained phrase speech at comparable ages. Those with regression exhibited greater delays in expressive and receptive communication over the follow-up period, although this effect was attenuated when accounting for baseline differences in motor and cognitive ability. Overall, those with language regression continued to exhibit expressive but not receptive communication delay compared to those without regression. Communication trajectories were heterogeneous to age 10 years, irrespective of regression status. CONCLUSIONS: Although language regression can be alarming, our findings confirm that its occurrence does not necessarily foreshadow worse developmental outcomes relative to those without regression. Although a discrepancy in age-equivalent communication skills may persist, this can be expected to be of less practical importance with rising average levels of skills. Future studies need to account for the significant variability in language trajectories by considering factors beyond developmental regression.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".