RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Automated diagnosis of autism: State of the art
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.29.21254249
DO 10.1101/2021.06.29.21254249
A1 Valizadeh, Amir
A1 Moassefi, Mana
A1 Nakhostin-Ansari, Amin
A1 Some’eh, Soheil Heidari
A1 Hosseini-Asl, Hossein
A1 Torbati, Mehrnush Saghab
A1 Aghajani, Reyhaneh
A1 Ghorbani, Zahra Maleki
A1 Menbari-Oskouie, Iman
A1 Aghajani, Faezeh
A1 Mirzamohamadi, Alireza
A1 Ghafouri, Mohammad
A1 Faghani, Shahriar
A1 Memari, Amir Hossein
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/29/2021.06.29.21254249.abstract
AB Background Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) represents a panel of conditions that begin during the developmental period and result in impairments of personal, social, academic, or occupational functioning. Early diagnosis is directly related to a better prognosis. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of ASD requires a long and exhausting subjective process.Objective To review the state of the art for the automated autism diagnosis.Methods In February 2022, we searched multiple databases and several sources of grey literature for eligible studies. We used an adapted version of the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. A brief report of the methods and results of each study is presented. Data were synthesized for each modality separately using the Split Component Synthesis (SCS) method. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistics and evaluated publication bias using trim and fill tests combined with ln DOR. Confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach for diagnostic studies.Results We included 344 studies from 186020 participants (51129 are estimated to be unique) for nine different modalities in this review, from which 232 reported sufficient data for meta-analysis. The area under the curve was in the range of 0.71-0.90 for all the modalities. The studies on EEG data provided the best accuracy, with the area under the curve ranging between 0.85 to 0.93.Conclusions The literature is rife with bias and methodological/reporting flaws. Recommendations are provided for future research to provide better studies and fill in the current knowledge gaps.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNot fundedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesTo access the data of the studies, contact their respective authors. Review data are available as appendix files.