Disentangling the relationship between sensory processing, alexithymia and broad autism spectrum: A study in parents’ of children with autism spectrum disorders and sensory processing disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autistic features and sensory processing difficulties and their phenotypic co-expression with alexithymia share a transdiagnostic vulnerability. In this work, we explored whether the current concept of broad autism phenotype rather translates altered sensory processing (non-specific to autism), meaning that the characteristics of altered sensory processing should be overexpressed among individuals with heightened vulnerability to sensory processing atypicalities (parents of children with sensorial processing disorder, or SPD parents) and individuals with heightened vulnerability to autistic traits (parents of children with autism spectrum disorders, or ASD parents). In addition, the association between altered sensory processing and alexithymia was inspected. METHOD: The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, Autism Spectrum Quotient, and Toronto Alexithymia Scale were completed by 31 parents of children with ASD, 32 parents of children with SPD, and 52 parents of typically developed (TD) children. RESULTS: Extreme sensory patterns were overexpressed both in parents of children with SPD and parents of children with ASD when compared to parents of TD children. In addition, extreme sensory patterns were significantly associated with alexithymia scores. Specifically, sensory avoidance, low registration, and sensory sensitivity were positively correlated with alexithymia. No significant differences were found regarding the proportion of autistic traits and alexithymia between ASD and SPD groups of parents. CONCLUSIONS: These results challenge the specificity of broad autism phenotype and suggest a neurodevelopmental atypicity with roots in altered sensory and emotional processing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".