The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 12 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder
Open accessAbstract
Objective This study evaluated the potential impact of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Method The study focused on a sample of 933 participants evaluated during the DSM-IV field trial; 657 carried a clinical diagnosis of an ASD, and 276 were diagnosed with a non-autistic disorder. Sensitivity and specificity for proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria were evaluated using field trial symptom checklists as follows: individual field trial checklist items (e.g., nonverbal communication); checklist items grouped together as described by a single DSM-5 symptom (e.g., nonverbal and verbal communication); individual DSM-5 criterion (e.g., social-communicative impairment); and overall diagnostic criteria. Results When applying proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, 60.6% (95% confidence interval: 57%-64%) of cases with a clinical diagnosis of an ASD met revised DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD. Overall specificity was high, with 94.9% (95% confidence interval: 92%-97%) of individuals accurately excluded from the spectrum. Sensitivity varied by diagnostic subgroup (autistic disorder = 0.76; Asperger's disorder = 0.25; pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified = 0.28) and cognitive ability (IQ < 70 = 0.70; IQ ≥ 70 = 0.46). Conclusions Proposed DSM-5 criteria could substantially alter the composition of the autism spectrum. Revised criteria improve specificity but exclude a substantial portion of cognitively able individuals and those with ASDs other than autistic disorder. A more stringent diagnostic rubric holds significant public health ramifications regarding service eligibility and compatibility of historical and future research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Own result · 22 Own interpretation · 9 No full text of the sources · 3 Own method · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and/or the RRB criterion domain (22%)”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proposed DSM-5 criteria accurately excluded 262 of 276 (94.9%; 95% CI: 92–97%) individuals.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“DSM-5 criteria, however, showed excellent specificity, accurately excluding 94.9% who did not receive a clinical diagnosis of ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sensitivity varied by diagnostic subgroup (Autistic Disorder =.76; Asperger’s Disorder = .25; PDD-NOS = .28) and cognitive ability (IQ < 70 = .70; IQ ≥ 70 = .46).”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportion of individuals (274 of 393 cases, or 69.7%) with lower cognitive ability (i.e., IQ < 70) meeting DSM-5 criteria was significantly higher than the proportion of individuals (109 of 237 cases, or 46.0%) with higher cognitive ability (i.e., IQ ≥ 70) meeting DSM-5 criteria (X2(1)= 34.9, p < .001”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Individuals with intellectual disability were more likely than cognitively able individuals to meet DSM-5 criteria (69.7% and 46.0%, respectively).”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 393 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those meeting and failing to meet proposed DSM-5 ASD diagnostic criteria were comparable with respect to chronological age (M = 9.15, SD = 6.92; M = 9.14, SD = 6.85, respectively; t(654) = 0.02, p = .98)”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most individuals failing to meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria did so because of a failure to meet the social communication criterion (27%)”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When applying proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, 60.6% (95% confidence interval: 57–64%) of cases with a clinical diagnosis of an ASD met revised DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, 398 of 657 clinically diagnosed cases (60.6%; 95% CI: 57–64%) met the proposed criteria for ASD”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“This re-analysis indicated that, based on proposed DSM-5 criteria, 60.6% of individuals clinically diagnosed with an ASD in the field trial would continue to meet DSM-5 criteria”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plainn = 657- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall specificity was high, with 94.9% (95% confidence interval: 92–97%) of individuals accurately excluded from the spectrum.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, 109 of 237 clinically diagnosed cases (46%) met the proposed criteria for ASD”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plainn = 237- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with 128 cases (54%) failing to meet diagnostic threshold.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plainn = 128- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of specificity, DSM-5 criteria accurately excluded 126 of 129 (98%) individuals.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with 259 cases (39.4%) failing to meet diagnostic threshold.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“but 39.4% would no longer meet diagnostic criteria.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plainn = 657- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all but 3% met the onset criterion.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as 97% of the sample met this 36 month cut-off.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
In the paper
“altering DSM-5 criteria to allow 2 of 3 social-communication criteria improves the balance of sensitivity and specificity from .61 and .95 to .75 and .85, respectively.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Mattila, 2011, Autism spectrum disorders according to DSM-IV-TR and comparison with DSM-5 draft criteria: an epidemiological study, J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Revised criteria improve specificity, but exclude a substantial portion of cognitively able individuals and those with ASDs other than Autistic Disorder.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The DSM-IV field trial sample is representative of the broader population of individuals with ASD and other developmental or psychiatric disorders.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Revised criteria improve specificity, but exclude a substantial portion of cognitively able individuals and those with ASDs other than Autistic Disorder.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The DSM-IV field trial sample is representative of the broader population of individuals with ASD and other developmental or psychiatric disorders.
In the paper
“The DSM-IV criteria set developed in the field trial had sensitivity of .93 and specificity of.78 for autism; additional methodological details regarding data acquisition are provided in the original study.28”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Method
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] Volkmar, 1994, Field trial for autistic disorder in DSM-IV, Am J Psychiatry source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Revised criteria improve specificity, but exclude a substantial portion of cognitively able individuals and those with ASDs other than Autistic Disorder.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposed DSM-5 criteria substantially alter the composition of the autism spectrum.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The DSM-IV field trial sample is representative of the broader population of individuals with ASD and other developmental or psychiatric disorders.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DSM-5 will affect the compatibility of future research with prior work.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The modifications proposed to diagnostic criteria for ASD appear to result in a more stringent diagnostic threshold.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
In the paper
“This change in diagnostic criteria may address a criticism of prior systems that have broadened the spectrum and been associated with increased prevalence rates.32”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Wing, 2011, Autism spectrum disorders in the DSM-V: better or worse than the DSM-IV?, Res Dev Disabil source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significant changes in the type of individuals meeting or failing to meet criteria render comparisons of current or historical samples with DSM-5-based samples unreliable.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than changes to the wording or inclusion/omission of any individual criterion, the change to a monothetic versus polythetic symptom set for the social-communication domain had the greatest effect.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most importantly, our work compared historical clinical diagnosis with currently proposed criteria and thus may, in part, confound differences in diagnostic cut-offs with evolved perspectives on ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proposed change to a spectrum approximates a diagnostic construct closer to classic autism.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“results of a reanalysis of DSM-IV field trial data indicate that proposed DSM-5 criteria will significantly alter the composition of individuals meeting criteria for an ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploratory analyses indicate that the observed changes in sensitivity and specificity are associated with particular characteristics of the revised diagnostic rubric.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the alteration in nomenclature prevents a straightforward mapping of samples onto one another.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Collapsing into a spectrum eliminates the possibility of validating subtypes of ASD.25,34,35”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [25] Ghanizadeh, 2011, Can retaining Asperger syndrome in DSM V help establish neurobiological endophenotypes?, J Autism Dev Disord sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The main text (p. 1) discusses interest in possible PDD subtypes and the potential value of studying endophenotypes. It does not say that collapsing diagnoses into a spectrum eliminates the possibility of validating ASD subtypes; a search for that proposition found no further passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)
- Not matchedcites [34] Baron-Cohen, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Mandy, 2011, Toward specifying pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified, Autism Res source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If two of three social communication symptoms (instead of all three) were required, overall sensitivity would increase from .61 to .75 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .84, .52, and .55, respectively), with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .95 to .85.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sensitivity varied by diagnostic subgroup (Autistic Disorder =.76; Asperger’s Disorder = .25; PDD-NOS = .28) and cognitive ability (IQ < 70 = .70; IQ ≥ 70 = .46).”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were also significant discrepancies in cases meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria across clinical diagnoses (X2(2) = 138.3, p < .001); 341 of 450 (75.8%) of cases with a clinical diagnosis of Autistic Disorder, 12 of 48 (25%) of cases with Asperger’s Disorder, and 45 of 159 (28.3%) of cases with PDD-NOS or atypical autism met proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Individuals clinically diagnosed with Autistic Disorder were more likely to pass DSM-5 diagnostic threshold than those with Asperger’s Disorder or PDD-NOS (75.8%, 25.0%, and 28.3%, respectively).”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if two social-communication criteria and zero RRB symptoms were required (corresponding to the most lenient requirements for PDD-NOS according to DSM-IV-TR criteria), sensitivity would increase from .61 to .94 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .98, .88, and .81, respectively) with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .95 to .67.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a polythetic threshold for social-communication (two of three criteria) and requirement of one RRB symptom, sensitivity would increase from .61 to .91 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .97, .77, and .77, respectively) with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .95 to .75.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If zero RBB symptoms were required, sensitivity would increase from .61 to .72 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .86, .38, and .42, respectively), with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .95 to .88.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and sex ratio (60.4% of males and 63.2% of females met diagnostic criteria; X2(1)= .30, p = .59).”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one RRB symptom were required, sensitivity would increase from .61 to .71 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .85, .31, and .40, respectively), with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .95 to .91.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and/or the RRB criterion domain (29%)”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If zero RBB symptoms were required, sensitivity would increase from .46 to .56 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .79, .38, and .31, respectively), with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .98 to .95.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one RRB symptom were required, sensitivity would increase from .46 to .54 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .79, .31, and .31, respectively), with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .98 to .96.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If two of three social communication symptoms (instead of all three) were required, overall sensitivity would increase from .46 to .67 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .81, .53, and .53, respectively), with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .98 to .93.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all but 5% met the onset criterion.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enacting this change and also lowering the RRB threshold to one symptom raised sensitivity to .91 but lowers specificity to .75.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if two social-communication criteria and zero RRB symptoms were required (corresponding to the most lenient requirements for PDD-NOS according to DSM-IV-TR criteria), sensitivity would increase from .46 to .89 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .99, .87, and .76, respectively) with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .98 to .74.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were also significant discrepancies in cases meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria across clinical diagnoses (X2(2) = 46.8, p < .001); 80 of 117 (68.4%) of cases with a clinical diagnosis of Autistic Disorder, 12 of 45 (26.7%) of cases with Asperger’s Disorder, and 17 of 75 (22.7%) of cases with PDD-NOS or atypical autism met proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most individuals failing to meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria did so because of a failure to meet the social communication criterion (42%)”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a polythetic threshold for social-communication (two of three criteria) and requirement of one RRB symptom, sensitivity would increase from .46 to .85 (specific sensitivity for Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS would be .97, .76, and .72, respectively) with a corresponding decrease in specificity from .98 to .82.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A more stringent diagnostic rubric holds significant public health ramifications regarding service eligibility and compatibility of historical and future research.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The DSM-IV field trial sample is representative of the broader population of individuals with ASD and other developmental or psychiatric disorders.
In the paper
“Finally, as has been the case with previous revisions of the DSM, diagnoses issued according to current criteria would, in some cases, differ from those based on proposed criteria, reducing the comparability of future studies with prior research.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] Singh, 2009, Trends in US autism research funding, J Autism Dev Disord source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Clinical diagnosis demonstrated good overall sensitivity and specificity, being highly consistent with the ICD-10 criteria that were current at that time.30”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Method
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] Volkmar, 2005, Issues in the classification of autism and related conditions source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There was also strong inter-clinician agreement (kappa=.95) on whether or not individuals met clinical diagnosis for a PDD.31”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Method
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Klin, 2000, Brief report: interrater reliability of clinical diagnosis and DSM-IV criteria for autistic disorder: results of the DSM-IV autism field trial, J Autism Dev Disord source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with the skewed sex ratio characteristic of ASD, ASD and non-ASD groups differed in terms of gender ( X2(1)= 17.7, p < .001) but were comparable in terms of age (t (931) = .57, p > .05) and IQ ( X2(5) = 10.0, p > .05).”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This ostensible reduction in sensitivity is accompanied by very strong specificity, with nearly all individuals carrying non-ASD clinical diagnoses being accurately classified.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most cognitively able individuals and individuals diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder and PDD-NOS would no longer meet criteria for an ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the proposed criteria, cognitively able individuals and those with ASDs other than Autistic Disorder would be less likely to receive a diagnosis on the autism spectrum.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This reduced sensitivity is associated with stronger specificity, with nearly all individuals carrying non-ASD clinical diagnoses being accurately excluded from the spectrum.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
- Rests on an assumption: The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
In the paper
“A potential problem with SCD as written is that, like PDD-NOS in DSM-IV-TR, it is a loosely defined residual diagnosis and is potentially vulnerable to the same problems encountered with PDD-NOS, such as poor inter-rater agreement on diagnosis, limited insight into associated phenotypic characteristics (e.g., cognitive or neuropsychological function), and disagreement on precise symptom constell”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Mandy, 2011, Toward specifying pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified, Autism Res source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The descriptor of “early childhood” proposed in DSM-5, because it is more vague, may include a wider range of children whose difficulties manifest after age three.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with DSM-5 ASD offering 11 combinations of criteria and DSM-IV Autistic Disorder offering 2,027 combinations.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These changes could exert detrimental effects on service eligibility and the ability of researchers to integrate information from autism research to-date with that conducted under the proposed criteria.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our sample of convenience was based specifically on referral for differential diagnosis of ASD and related disorders and was skewed towards individuals with ASD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is likely that a number of individuals failing to meet DSM-5 criteria for ASD will meet criteria for SCD.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These issues could lead to a considerable loss of information given the quantity of research conducted using the current diagnostic system.6”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Ghaziuddin, 2010, Should the DSM V drop Asperger syndrome?, J Autism Dev Disord source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Elimination of diagnostic subcategories may be harmful to those who have found a diagnosis important in terms of service acquisition or self-directed insight.26”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] Kaland, 2011, Brief report: Should Asperger syndrome be excluded from the forthcoming DSM-V?, Res Autism Spect Disord source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another obvious challenge of the proposed diagnostic taxon is incompatibility with ICD-10 criteria (and possibly criteria for ICD-11, currently in preparation), rendering it unreliable in future work to compare studies conducted outside of the US with those conducted according to the APA’s standards.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
“we developed an algorithm using individual items from this symptom set to correspond to the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD”
“each author independently selected items from the checklist to correspond to DSM-5 criteria, and all authors met as a group to develop a consensus algorithm”
The paper relies on this without support.
The DSM-IV field trial sample is representative of the broader population of individuals with ASD and other developmental or psychiatric disorders.
“This re-analysis focused on 933 cases, omitting individuals diagnosed with non-autistic PDDs (Rett’s Disorder, n=13; Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, n=16), as well as individuals missing data required for the present analyses (n=15).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.
“we contrasted 657 who had been clinically diagnosed with an ASD and a comparison sample of 276 individuals who received a clinical diagnosis not on the autism spectrum.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
“From 61 individual checklist items rated by these field trial evaluators, we created an algorithm analogous to proposed DSM-5 criteria”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the DSM-5 committee decided not to intentionally tighten the criteria in order to decrease prevalence, even though this has been claimed (McPartland et al. 2012).”
From Recent Advances in Autism Research as Reflected in DSM-5 Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder (2015) · cites this paper as McPartland et al. 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Overall DSM 5 ASD was reported to have high specificity but there is variability in specificity when it comes to different diagnostic subgroups [15].”
From Comparison of the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD): A study from North India (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies that used more limited datasets, such as the DSM-IV checklist or the ADDM reviews of existing reports (Maenner et al. 2014, McPartland et al. 2012), found less evidence of repetitive behaviors in children with PDD-NOS, which suggests that it is very important that clinicians collect adequate information about these behaviors.”
From Recent Advances in Autism Research as Reflected in DSM-5 Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder (2015) · cites this paper as McPartland et al. 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nearly 80% of the latter two groups appeared likely to lose their diagnostic label and thus potential eligibility for services (McPartland et al. 2012).”
From The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond (2021) · cites this paper as McPartland et al. 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This study was quickly followed by a study from McPartland and colleagues (McPartland et al. 2012) that reported results of a data reanalysis of cases from the DSM-IV field trial and reported dramatically reduced diagnostic rates not only in cases with clinical diagnoses of autism, but particularly in those with previous diagnoses of Asperger’s and PDD-NOS.”
From The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond (2021) · cites this paper as McPartland et al. 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“with similar core symptom presentations across the categorical diagnoses [12-16]”
From DSM-5 and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs): an opportunity for identifying ASD subtypes (2013) · cites this paper as [16]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For the children with high functioning Autism and Asperger's syndrome, this, in turn, has a major impact as they might have received the diagnosis as per DSM-IV-TR or ICD 10 (DCR-10)[15] but they may be at risk of losing a diagnostic label.”
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, many studies have used the clinical records as the information source and not the clinical interview [15,16,18,23,28]”
From Comparison of the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD): A study from North India (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“There are studies to support that these diagnoses do not translate directly to an ASD diagnosis on DSM-5 [1, 91].”
From Gut microbiota changes in children with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [91]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentχ²(1) = 17.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“X2(1)= 17.7, p < .001”
- Consistentt(931) = 0.57reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .569
“t (931) = .57, p > .05”
- Consistentχ²(5) = 10reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .075
“X2(5) = 10.0, p > .05”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 34.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“X2(1)= 34.9, p < .001”
- Consistentχ²(2) = 138.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“X2(2) = 138.3, p < .001”
- Consistentt(654) = 0.02reported p = .98 · recomputed p = .984
“t(654) = 0.02, p = .98”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 0.3reported p = .59 · recomputed p = .584
“X2(1)= .30, p = .59”
- Consistentχ²(2) = 46.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“X2(2) = 46.8, p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Abstract > Method
“This study focused on a sample of 977 participants evaluated during the DSM-IV field trial; 657 carried a clinical diagnosis of an ASD, and 276 were diagnosed with a non-autistic disorder.”
§ Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder Running Head: DSM-5 ASD > Method
“This re-analysis focused on 933 cases, omitting individuals diagnosed with non-autistic PDDs (Rett’s Disorder, n=13; Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, n=16), as well as individuals missing data required for the present analyses (n=15).”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
Hu, R. J. (2003) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b0-12-226870-9/01070-4 · Cited by 9,168
Spitzer, R. L. (1978) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770300115013 · Cited by 6,946
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ‐ IV ‐ TR )
Segal, D. L. (2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0271 · Cited by 4,687
Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders
(2005) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470939352 · Cited by 2,262
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R)
Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. (1987) · Cited by 1,621
Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in a Total Population Sample
Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y.-J., Fombonne, E., Laska, E., Lim, E.-C., Cheon, K.-A., Kim, S.-J., Kim, Y.-K., Lee, H., et al. (2011) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10101532 · Cited by 1,524
Rice, C. E. (2009) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e562722010-001 · Cited by 762
A Multisite Study of the Clinical Diagnosis of Different Autism Spectrum Disorders
Lord, C. (2012) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.148 · Cited by 516
Mack, A. H. (2011) · Yearbook of Psychiatry and Applied Mental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ypsy.2010.11.009 · Cited by 500
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Klin, 2000, Brief report: interrater reliability of clinical diagnosis and DSM-IV criteria for autistic disorder: results of the DSM-IV autism field trial, J Autism Dev Disord, 30, 163, 10.1023/a:1005415823867 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Is the Male-to-Female Ratio in Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Loomes, R., Hull, L., & Mandy, W. P. L. (2017) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2017.03.013 · Cited by 2,804
DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FIFTH EDITION
Abbas, A., & Aminoroaia, M. (2013) · Cited by 1,478
Hus, V., Gotham, K., & Lord, C. (2014) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1719-1 · Cited by 568
Nicolaidis, C., Raymaker, D., McDonald, K., Dern, S., Boisclair, W. C., Ashkenazy, E., & Baggs, A. (2013) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2262-7 · Cited by 419
“There has been considerable controversy over the proposed criteria, with some studies predicting a significant reduction in the number of people who will meet criteria, especially amongst those diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder or without intellectual disabilities.(65,66) There is concern that those individuals will…”
BackgroundDSM-5 and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs): an opportunity for identifying ASD subtypes
Grzadzinski, R., Huerta, M., & Lord, C. (2013) · Molecular Autism · doi:10.1186/2040-2392-4-12 · Cited by 378
“Although concerns have been raised about the validity and diagnostic sensitivity of the proposed DSM-5 criteria [19], a number of studies have emerged in support of the conceptual validity of the new criteria [20].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- McPartland, J. C., Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McPartland, James C.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 368-383
- ISSN
- 0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3424065
- OpenAlex
- W2024803279
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 36
- FWCI
- 36.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH086785, P50MH081756)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD003008, P01HD003008)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, sensitivity and specificity, autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, nonverbal communication, cognitive ability, diagnostic criteria revision
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Child, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnosis, Differential, Disability Evaluation, Eligibility Determination, Humans, Mental Health Services, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Incidence, Asperger Syndrome, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Checklist
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
