ArticleScientific reports2025
Compact subsets of autism screening items predict clinical diagnoses with a machine learning analysis of the QCHAT-10.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Label leakage unmasked: a trustworthy-AI audit of autism screening models using the CLEAR-RD framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early identification improves life outcomes for individuals with autism. This study addresses a central question: do compact subsets of the most predictive QCHAT-10 items, when fed into machine learning (ML) models trained to reproduce the full questionnaire's screening result, generalize to predicting clinician-established autism diagnoses in independent clinical settings? We applied ML to the 10-question QCHAT-10, training models on New Zealand (n = 1054) and Saudi Arabian (n = 506) datasets with QCHAT-derived labels and testing on Polish data with clinical diagnoses (n = 252). Recursive Feature Elimination identified four-item models retaining three common features: eye contact, following gaze direction, and pretend play. When tested on clinically-diagnosed Polish cases at the 0.3 prediction threshold, the New Zealand model achieved an AUROC of 85% ± 13 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 50%), while the Saudi model reached 87% ± 11 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 80%), compared to the Polish four-item model's cross-validation AUROC of 91% ± 5. These findings demonstrate partial transfer from the prediction of assessment scores to clinical diagnosis. The convergence on eye contact, gaze following, and pretend play suggests these behaviors represent robust autism risk markers. Compact assessment tools offer advantages, including reduced burden, shortened administration, and simplified deployment, with direct applications for targeted digital phenotyping.
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.