ArticleScientific reports2026
Feasibility of forecasting self-injurious behavior among autistic youth using wearable sensors and machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- The interactive turn in generative AI for self-harm.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-injurious behavior (SIB) is a substantial clinical challenge for many individuals on the autism spectrum, and support strategies are often only reactive. Forecasting of SIB could enable timely support, especially using wearable sensors, but its feasibility is not well understood. We evaluated SIB forecasting using a previously collected dataset (n = 9) comprising motion and physiological data. We compared the performance of four machine learning models-Random Forest, AdaBoost.M2, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and a Double-Stacked LSTM-across five forecast horizons (3s to 120s) and three feature sets: Motion-Only (from accelerometers), Physiological-Only (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance), and Combined. Performance was measured with a range of metrics, using Leave-One-Subject-Out cross-validation. We found a significant main effect of forecast horizon on the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve; performance rose from near-chance at short horizons to having median scores above chance at one minute or longer. While aggregated results showed no significant differences between models or feature sets, subject-level analysis suggested predictive feasibility and that the optimal model configuration were highly person-specific. Our findings demonstrate that forecasting using wearable sensor data is feasible, but the substantial performance variability highlights a critical need for person-specific approaches to enable the development of clinically useful, proactive support systems.
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.