ReviewCureus2021
Food for Thought: Machine Learning in Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening of Infants.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of lay and clinical narratives for transparent autism diagnosis using BioBERT deep learning.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Identifying the Best Discriminating Items for Three Autism Screening Methods in a High-Likelihood Sibling Population.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Latest clinical frontiers related to autism diagnostic strategies.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Review
- A Machine Learning Approach to the Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Multi-Systemic Developmental Disorder Based on Retrospective Data and ADOS-2 Score.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- A face image classification method of autistic children based on the two-phase transfer learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The Proposed Clustering Model to Predict Autism Spectrum Disorder in Toddlers.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are typically made after toddlerhood by examining behavioural patterns. Earlier identification of ASD enables earlier intervention and better outcomes. Machine learning provides a data-driven approach of diagnosing autism at an earlier age. This review aims to summarize recent studies and technologies utilizing machine learning based strategies to screen infants and children under the age of 18 months for ASD, and identify gaps that can be addressed in the future. We reviewed nine studies based on our search criteria, which includes primary studies and technologies conducted within the last 10 years that examine children with ASD or at high risk of ASD with a mean age of less than 18 months old. The studies must use machine learning analysis of behavioural features of ASD as major methodology. A total of nine studies were reviewed, of which the sensitivity ranges from 60.7% to 95.6%, the specificity ranges from 50% to 100%, and the accuracy ranges from 60.9% to 97.7%. Factors that contribute to the inconsistent findings include the varied presentation of ASD among patients and study design differences. Previous studies have shown moderate accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in the differentiation of ASD and non-ASD individuals under the age of 18 months. The application of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the screening of ASD in infants is still in its infancy, as observed by the granularity of data available for review. As such, much work needs to be done before the aforementioned technologies can be applied into clinical practice to facilitate early screening of ASD.
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.