Systematic review of outcome measures used in support programs designed to enhance the functioning for autistic children and adolescents and ICF content mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: 1) To identify outcome measures used in support programs designed to enhance functioning in autistic children and adolescents, and 2) To map the content of these measures to the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed in Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and Virtual Health Library databases, with no restrictions imposed regarding language or year of publication. Studies that used outcome measures to assess functioning and/or disability in autistic individuals up to 18 years of age were included. RESULTS: was the most used outcome measure. The most frequently associated ICF domains were d7 "Interpersonal interactions and relationships," d3 "Communication," and b1 "Mental functions." The most extensively assessed component was activities and participation. Bladder and bowel control (b5 "digestive, metabolic, and endocrine functions" and b6 "genitourinary and reproductive functions"), multitasking (d2 "general tasks and demands"), and environmental factors (e2 "natural environment and human-made changes" and e4 "attitudes") were each linked only once to the outcome measures. None of the studies addressed the body structures component. CONCLUSION: No single instrument adequately encompasses all ICF domains, underscoring a significant gap in current assessment tools. The domains of body structures, environmental factors and some body functions were under-assessed in studies involving autistic children and adolescents.
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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".