ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018
Autism Research: An Objective Quantitative Review of Progress and Focus Between 1994 and 2015.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autism in Viet Nam: A systematic scoping review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026Article
- Self-Report of Restricted Repetitive Behaviors in Autistic Adults: A Systematic Review.Autism in adulthood · 2026Article
- Remote Physiotherapy for Children with ASD during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Thematic Analysis of Physical Therapists' Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Digital screener of socio-motor agency balancing motor autonomy and motor control.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Gut microbiota and autism spectrum disorders: where do we stand?Gut pathogens · 2023Article
- Brain and Language Associations in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Scoping Review.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2022Article
- Value co-creation in business-to-business context: A bibliometric analysis using HistCite and VOS viewer.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Precision Autism: Genomic Stratification of Disorders Making Up the Broad Spectrum May Demystify Its "Epidemic Rates".Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- A Bibliometric Insight of Genetic Factors in ASD: Emerging Trends and New Developments.Brain sciences · 2020Review
- Identifying predictive features of autism spectrum disorders in a clinical sample of adolescents and adults using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Multi-Scale Coordination of Distinctive Movement Patterns During Embodied Interaction Between Adults With High-Functioning Autism and Neurotypicals.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nosology and epidemiology of Autism has undergone transformation following consolidation of once disparate disorders under the umbrella diagnostic, autism spectrum disorders. Despite this re-conceptualization, research initiatives, including the NIMH's Research Domain Criteria and Precision Medicine, highlight the need to bridge psychiatric and psychological classification methodologies with biomedical techniques. Combining traditional bibliometric co-word techniques, with tenets of graph theory and network analysis, this article provides an objective thematic review of research between 1994 and 2015 to consider evolution and focus. Results illustrate growth in Autism research since 2006, with nascent focus on physiology. However, modularity and citation analytics demonstrate dominance of subjective psychological or psychiatric constructs, which may impede progress in the identification and stratification of biomarkers as endorsed by new research initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.