ArticlePloS one2024
Creating a diagnostic assessment model for autism spectrum disorder by differentiating lexicogrammatical choices through machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using explainable machine learning and eye-tracking for diagnosing autism spectrum and developmental language disorders in social attention tasks.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Cognitive constraints and lexicogrammatical variability in ASD: from diagnostic discriminators to intervention strategies.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Lexicogrammatical profiling of ASD: cognitive-functional mapping and diagnostic implications.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explores the challenge of differentiating autism spectrum (AS) from non-AS conditions in adolescents and adults, particularly considering the heterogeneity of AS and the limitations ofssss diagnostic tools like the ADOS-2. In response, we advocate a multidimensional approach and highlight lexicogrammatical analysis as a key component to improve diagnostic accuracy. From a corpus of spoken language we developed, interviews and story-recounting texts were extracted for 64 individuals diagnosed with AS and 71 non-AS individuals, all aged 14 and above. Utilizing machine learning techniques, we analyzed the lexicogrammatical choices in both interviews and story-recounting tasks. Our approach led to the formulation of two diagnostic models: the first based on annotated linguistic tags, and the second combining these tags with textual analysis. The combined model demonstrated high diagnostic effectiveness, achieving an accuracy of 80%, precision of 82%, sensitivity of 73%, and specificity of 87%. Notably, our analysis revealed that interview-based texts were more diagnostically effective than story-recounting texts. This underscores the altered social language use in individuals with AS, a crucial aspect in distinguishing AS from non-AS conditions. Our findings demonstrate that lexicogrammatical analysis is a promising addition to traditional AS diagnostic methods. This approach suggests the possibility of using natural language processing to detect distinctive linguistic patterns in AS, aiming to enhance diagnostic accuracy for differentiating AS from non-AS in adolescents and adults.
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.