ArticleCoDAS2026
The use of the Labyrinth Scale in the differential diagnosis of children aged 2 to 4 with a history of psychological distress, autism and different language outcomes.
Article in CoDAS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the diagnostic utility of the Autism Diagnostic Labyrinth Scale to differentiate children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) from children with language disorders or delay and those with typical development in the 2 to 4 age range.
methods29 children aged 2 to 4 years were evaluated using the Labyrinth Scale, with and without a history of psychological distress, identified as having Typical Development (TD), Delayed Language Acquisition (DLA), Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), or ASD. Totals and subscale scores for social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, restricted and repetitive behaviors, and gestures were statistically compared to differentiate between groups.
resultsthere were statistically significant differences in total scores and across all four subscales of the Labyrinth Scale between the ASD group and the other clinical groups evaluated (TD, DLA, and DLD) (p < 0.001). The Verbal Communication subscale also demonstrated specific ability to significantly distinguish the LAD group from the DLD group (p<0.001).
conclusionThe Labyrinth Scale proved to be useful in clearly differentiating children with ASD from those with DLD, LAD, and typical development, suggesting strong clinical potential of the instrument for early differential diagnosis among these clinical conditions.
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.