MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964337255 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6652073.v1

Trajectory research in children with an autism diagnosis: A scoping review

2023· other· en· W6964337255 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismTrajectoryOutcome (game theory)Longitudinal studyAutism spectrum disorderResearch designDevelopmental disorderDevelopmental psychopathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers increasingly employ longitudinal trajectory methods to understand developmental pathways of people on the autism spectrum across the lifespan. By assessing developmental or health-related outcome domains at three or more timepoints, trajectory studies can characterize their shape and varying rates of change over time. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the published breadth of research that uses a trajectory study design to examine development in children (to age 18 years) diagnosed with autism. Using a systematic search and screening procedure, 103 studies were included. This review summarizes methodological characteristics across studies including the varying statistical approaches used. A series of figures maps where published research is available across 10 outcome domains and the ages over which children have been followed. Evidence gaps, informed by the perspectives of the autistic and caregiver stakeholders that were engaged in this review, are discussed. We recommend that future trajectory research addresses the absence of studies from low- and middle-income countries, considers longitudinal assessment of outcome domains that caregivers and autistic people consider meaningful, and plans follow-up periods with assessment timepoints that cover the gaps in ages where more outcome-specific data are needed.Lay AbstractThe types of outcomes studied in children on the autism spectrum include clinical characteristics, such as social functioning, communication, language, or autism symptoms. Research that measures these outcomes at multiple timepoints is useful to improve our understanding of what to expect as children develop. In trajectory studies, researchers assess outcomes at three or more timepoints. This method has advantages over two-timepoint studies because it allows researchers to describe changes in the speed of development, such as accelerations, plateaus, or slowdowns. We identified and reviewed 103 published trajectory studies in children (to age 18 years) with an autism diagnosis. Importantly, we did not include studies of treatments or their effects, nor did we summarize the results of studies. Instead, this review summarizes the characteristics of the available published research, including the methods used, the many different outcomes that have been studied over time and the ages over which they have been studied. This summary may be of interest to autistic people and caregivers (parents) who want to know about the existence of research that provides answers about what to expect during an autistic child’s development. We have recommended that future trajectory research efforts try to make up for the lack of studies from low- and middle-income countries; that more attention is given to the following outcomes that are meaningful to caregivers and autistic people; and to try to fill in the age gaps where more outcome-specific data are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0220.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207