MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113899855 · doi:10.1080/20473869.2025.2597840

A network analysis of intolerance of uncertainty, screen time, and emotional problems in chinese children with autism spectrum disorder

2025· article· en· W7113899855 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental Disabilities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderAutismNetwork analysisFunctional analysisBehavioral analysisStatistical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Emotional problems are common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and can place a heavy burden on children and their families. This study explored the relationships between intolerance of uncertainty (IU), screen time, and emotional problems in children with ASD and neurotypical (NT) children using network analysis methods.Methods This cross-sectional study involved 767 children, including 365 with ASD (agemean ± sd = 11.60 ± 3.92) and 402 NT children (agemean ± sd = 11.11 ± 4.04). Participants completed measurements of IU, screen time, and emotional problems. Networks were constructed using Gaussian graphical models.Results In the IU -Emotional Problems (IU-EP) network, EP4 (Nervousness in new situations) and EP2 (Excessive worrying) were bridge nodes in both groups; IU6 (Cannot stand sudden events) was the unique bridge node for children with ASD, while IU11 (Worry stops him/her) was for NT children. After incorporating screen time into the IU-EP network, it was found that PST (Passive screen time) became a new bridge node in the ASD network, while AST (Active screen time) emerged as a new bridge node in the NT network.Conclusion These findings suggest that interventions should target IU and consider screen type to effectively support children’s emotional well-being.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental DisabilitiesSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207