MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411881670 · doi:10.1186/s11689-025-09627-3

Pathways to autism diagnosis in adulthood

2025· article· en· W4411881670 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabelle Dufour, Yohann Chiu, Sébastien Brodeur, Mireille Courteau, Josiane Courteau, E. Dubé, Alain Lesage, Éric Fombonne, Mélanie Couture

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAutismMedical diagnosisAutism spectrum disorderPsychiatryCohortRetrospective cohort studyNeurodevelopmental disorderAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Intellectual disabilityMedical recordAnxietyMedicineCohort studyPsychologyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study explored Trajectories of Diagnoses (TDs) preceding a first diagnosis of autism in adulthood. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used health administrative data from Quebec, Canada, and included all adults with a first recorded diagnosis of autism between 2012 and 2017. A TDs was defined as a succession of medical records of psychiatric and/or neurodevelopmental conditions over time. These TDs were retrospectively analyzed from 2002 to 2017, using a state sequence analysis of diagnoses, in order: Autism, Intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDDs), Schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD), Bipolar Disorder (BD), Depressive Disorder (DD), Anxiety Disorder (AD), Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and Other psychiatric and/or neurodevelopmental conditions. RESULTS: The cohort included 2799 adults with a first recorded diagnosis of autism between 2012 and 2017. Several psychiatric and/or neurodevelopmental conditions were recorded since 2002, including AD (77.5%), DD (58.0%), SSD (49.4%), BD (48.3%), and IDDs (33.2%). Results revealed 5 distinct types of TDs. Types 1 (63.8%), 2 (17.6%) and 3 (6%) represented individuals in younger age groups with similar characteristics but with very different sequences of diagnoses, characterized by mixed diagnoses in type 1, SSD and AD in Type 2, and IDDs, DD, AD, and ADHD in type 3. Types 4 and 5 (9.0% and 3.6%), representing middle-aged/older groups, displayed distinctive TDs associated with high healthcare use, almost entirely associated with SSD (Type 4) and BD (Type 5). CONCLUSION: This study proposes a complementary examination of the multiple pathways to diagnosis experienced by adults, highlighting the need to address differential diagnosis and co-occurring psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurodevelopmental DisordersSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207