SLPCohortMolecular autism2025

Early developmental trajectory phenotypes for risk stratification of autism spectrum disorder in very preterm infants: a machine learning approach.

Li-Wen Chen, Yi-Tien Li, Chi-Hsiang Chu and 6 others

PMID 41454355

WHAT IT FOUND

Very preterm children later diagnosed with ASD showed lower cognition and slower receptive, expressive, and fine motor development from 12 to 24 months.

Neonatal risks plus these scores were better at identifying low likelihood than true cases.

Key findings

01Children born very preterm who were later diagnosed with ASD had lower cognition from 6 to 24 months and slower receptive, expressive, and fine motor development from 12 to 24 months, while gross motor scores did not differ.

02The best model used neonatal risks and Bayley scores at 6, 12, and 24 months, and it was better at identifying children unlikely to have ASD than children who had ASD.

03Adding 24-month Bayley scores to neonatal risks and earlier scores gave the best prediction; adding only 6- or 12-month scores gave only marginal improvement.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The model was trained and tested in one regional cohort of very preterm children in southern Taiwan, so it may not apply to other health systems or populations. Of children the model predicted to have ASD, 24.7% had ASD, so many children predicted as having ASD did not have ASD. The model identified 64.2% of children with ASD, so it did not identify all children later diagnosed with ASD. Infants with congenital syndromes, brain malformation, blindness, hearing impairment, or severe cerebral palsy were excluded, so it says little about those children. ASD diagnosis was made at age 5, later than the commonly recommended 18 to 24 month screening window, so the model's timing may not match routine early screening. 153 children were lost to follow-up and had lower family socioeconomic status and maternal education, so the analysed group may not represent all survivors. The prediction performance was modest, with the best classifier correctly classifying 71.8% of children.

Declared interests

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan and National Cheng Kung University Hospital.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the model as a way to diagnose autism. Of children it predicted to have autism, 24.7% had autism, while of children it predicted not to have autism, 93.6% did not have autism.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →