ArticleFrontiers in developmental psychology2026
Early motor trajectories in infants at increased genetic likelihood for autism.
Article in Frontiers in developmental psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Infants with an older sibling with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (EL-AutSib) and infants with tuberous sclerosis complex (EL-TSC), a genetic neurodevelopmental syndrome highly associated with ASD, exhibit motor and other developmental differences in the first year of life. Despite the prevalence of gross motor impairments in these populations and the need for early clinical monitoring, there is little conclusive evidence of the onset of motor differences between these groups, specific patterns of delay, and how these might relate to a future ASD diagnosis. In this study, we used a detailed gross motor infant assessment, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), to assess motor trajectories in the first year of life in EL-AutSib, EL-TSC, and a comparison group with low-likelihood of autism (LL). Methods: Participants included 51 EL-AutSib, 26 LL, and 16 EL-TSC infants who were assessed on motor ability at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of age using the AIMS. EL-AutSib participants were further categorized into autism (ASD) or no autism (nASD) groups based on clinical best estimate at 24 or 36 months of age. AIMS total scores were analyzed using a linear mixed-model to assess differences in motor development between groups over time. Results: EL-AutSib-ASD, EL-AutSib-nASD, and LL groups exhibited comparable growth in motor ability over 3-12 months of age. Though non-significant, LL participants on average had the highest AIMS total scores across timepoints, followed by EL-AutSib-nASD and EL-AutSib-ASD, respectively. EL-TSC participants scored significantly lower on the AIMS compared to the EL-AutSib-ASD group (ß=-7.92, p<0.001), with slower growth over time (ß=-0.80, p=0.04). Discussion: These findings identify distinct motor trajectories between two populations with an elevated genetic likelihood of developing ASD. EL-AutSibs displayed converging motor trajectories with the LL group irrespective of ASD outcomes, suggesting that motor milestones, even when examined more granularly, may not capture the full range of motor differences in EL-AutSibs. However, the AIMS captured early and persistent motor delays in EL-TSC infants, highlighting the clinical utility of this measure for populations with more significant developmental delays.
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.