Differential cognitive and behavioral development from 6 to 24 months in autism and fragile X syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specifying early developmental differences among neurodevelopmental disorders with distinct etiologies is critical to improving early identification and tailored intervention during the first years of life. Recent studies have uncovered important differences between infants with fragile X syndrome (FXS) and infants with familial history of autism spectrum disorder who go on to develop autism themselves (FH-ASD), including differences in brain development and behavior. Thus far, there have been no studies longitudinally investigating differential developmental skill profiles in FXS and FH-ASD infants. METHODS: The current study contrasted longitudinal trajectories of verbal (expressive and receptive language) and nonverbal (gross and fine motor, visual reception) skills in FXS and FH-ASD infants, compared to FH infants who did not develop ASD (FH-nonASD) and typically developing controls. RESULTS: Infants with FXS showed delays on a nonverbal composite compared to FH-ASD (as well as FH-nonASD and control) infants as early as 6 months of age. By 12 months an ordinal pattern of scores was established between groups on all domains tested, such that controls > FH-nonASD > FH-ASD > FXS. This pattern persisted through 24 months. Cognitive level differentially influenced developmental trajectories for FXS and FH-ASD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate detectable group differences by 6 months between FXS and FH-ASD as well as differential trajectories on each domain throughout infancy. This work further highlights an earlier onset of global cognitive delays in FXS and, conversely, a protracted period of more slowly emerging delays in FH-ASD. Divergent neural and cognitive development in infancy between FXS and FH-ASD contributes to our understanding of important distinctions in the development and behavioral phenotype of these two groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".