ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
A multi-method phenotypic study of sex differences in pragmatic language in autism.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- On markers of linguistic impairment in autism and their implementation.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized in part by differences in pragmatic (i.e., social) language use. However, few studies on pragmatic language have included a meaningful number of autistic females, and even fewer have evaluated pragmatic language profiles for sex-specific differences. The existing literature on pragmatic language in autistic individuals without intellectual disability suggests that females may have stronger social communication skills compared to males, but findings are mixed, and there is not a clear profile of specific pragmatic skills that are liable to sex differences. It is also important to develop novel methodologies, such as computational methods, to characterize pragmatic language in ways less labor-intensive than gold-standard hand-coding methods, which are extremely time consuming and typically not feasible in clinical settings. Methods: The present study examined hand coding of pragmatic language data samples alongside multiple computational linguistic methodological approaches to characterize sex differences in pragmatic language in autistic males and females across narrative and semi-structured conversational tasks that might reveal context-specific patterns across sex and diagnostic groups. Results: Results indicated that most pragmatic domains differed between autistic and non-autistic groups, with autistic males showing the most obvious pragmatic differences, and that differences between diagnostic groups were more pronounced in the semi-structured conversational context. The alignment between computational and hand-coded findings was strongest in domains with clear theoretical overlap (e.g., frequency of emotional words) but was less consistent in areas that were less theoretically aligned (e.g., conversational dynamics and single word function). Discussion: These findings support the promise of computational methods for characterizing narrative abilities, though further study including validation against hand-coded approaches is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.