Aug 2026· Pediatric Investigation· 0 citations· 41 references
Medicine
TL;DR
This critical narrative review examines early autism identification as a pathway problem rather than as a single testing event and argues that early autism identification should be evaluated through linked quality measures: response to concern, repeated surveillance following negative or ambiguous screening, referral completion, time to diagnostic assessment, support initiation before diagnostic closure, and equity of access.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Early autism identification in children aged 0–5 years is often discussed in terms of screening accuracy, yet consequential delay frequently occurs across the pathway from first concern to referral, diagnostic assessment, and support. This critical narrative review examines early autism identification as a pathway problem rather than as a single testing event. It synthesizes evidence on developmental surveillance, autism‐specific screening, parental and clinician concern, referral conversion, diagnostic waiting, service capacity, inequity, family burden, and pre‐diagnostic support. Screening tools can identify an elevated likelihood of autism and may accelerate diagnosis for some screen‐positive children, but they cannot confirm diagnosis or safely exclude autism when concern persists, and they do not compensate for failures in follow‐up, referral, assessment capacity, or support initiation. Recent evidence supports a cautious interpretation of universal autism screening because diagnostic stability, screening accuracy, and intervention benefit in screen‐detected children remain uncertain. Comparative evidence on the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow‐Up suggests context‐dependent performance, including variable sensitivity, low or inconsistent positive predictive value, and age‐dependent accuracy. Multicultural surveillance and implementation studies indicate that adding tools without aligning workflow, language support, follow‐up systems, and service capacity may not improve pathway performance. The review argues that early autism identification should be evaluated through linked quality measures: response to concern, repeated surveillance following negative or ambiguous screening, referral completion, time to diagnostic assessment, support initiation before diagnostic closure, and equity of access. The clinical priority is not a perfect screening instrument in isolation, but faster, more coherent, and more equitable local pathways that translate concern into timely action.
It is argued that future early ASD detection systems should be developed as clinician-supervised decision-support tools rather than autonomous diagnostic instruments.
Wenhao Luo, Z. Yin, Jianbiao Dai· Diagnostics· 0 citations
The evidence suggests delayed ASD diagnosis in Brazil reflects systemic gaps in care organization rather than isolated clinical factors, and strengthening PCP-based developmental surveillance and improving referral coordination are key strategies to reduce preventable delays and promote earlier access to intervention.
Bianca Teeny Sallum, Monaliza Ehlke Ozorio Haddad, Maria Gabriela Custódio de Figueiredo et al.· Children· 0 citations
This Perspective argues that best-estimate clinical diagnosis must be grounded in rigorous developmental anchoring, collateral information, and judicious clinical judgment, and proposes a set of core stratification domains for systematic phenotypic stratification.
Gabriela N. F. Guimarães· Frontiers in Psychiatry· 0 citations
Behavioral observation through examiner-child structured interactive play, particularly metrics related to eye contact, effectively differentiates toddlers with iASD.
Dan Ai, Binyue Hu, Qiuhong Wei et al.· BMC Psychiatry· 0 citations
Artificial intelligence shows promise as a supportive tool for early screening, but current evidence supports its use as a complement to, rather than replacement for, clinical assessment.
Andrea Catalina Mahecha Ballesteros, Juanita Valeria García Bello, Eleaine Scarlet González Zuñiga et al.· Current Psychiatry Reports· 0 citations
Early diagnosis of autism is crucial for timely intervention, yet existing screening tools are often limited by administration time in clinical settings. This study developed and evaluated the Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds-Brief Form (STAT-BF) for detecting autism in toddlers aged less than 36 months. In Study 1, two independent samples of 40 toddlers each (20 autistic and 20 with developmental delays [DDs]) were analyzed using chi-square tests to identify discriminative items. Five items (Turn-taking, Bubbles, Snack, Balloon, and Bag of Toys) were retained, with a cutoff score of 3 yielding optimal sensitivity and specificity. Study 2's validation, based on a sample of 251 toddlers (81 autism, 55 mild- autism, 115 DDs), yielded high sensitivity for autism (0.91; 74/81) and mild-autism (0.91; 50/55), together with good specificity (0.81; 93/115). Administration time was reduced to 5 to 10 min while maintaining screening accuracy. These findings suggest that the STAT-BF may serve as a feasible and efficient Level 2 screening tool for early autism detection among toddlers referred for developmental concerns, particularly in resource-limited clinical settings. Further validation in diverse populations and longitudinal follow-up is warranted to establish generalizability.Lay AbstractEarly support can make a big difference in the outcomes of autistic children, but they must first be identified as early as possible. Although reliable autism screening tools exist, many are too time-consuming for high-volume clinical settings. In this study, we developed and validated a shorter version of the Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds (STAT) that takes 5 to 10 min. This brief tool focuses on five play-based activities that assess social communication skills in toddlers aged 18 to 36 months. We conducted a two-phase study in Taiwan. The first phase identified the most discriminating items, and the validation phase included 251 toddlers with autism, mild-autism, and developmental delays (DDs). Results showed that the brief form correctly identified over 90% of autistic children, including those with milder symptoms, and correctly ruled out autism in about 80% of children with DDs. This efficient screening method could help more health care providers detect autism early, especially in high-volume clinical settings with limited resources. Because the brief form uses structured play instead of parent questionnaires, it offers direct behavioral observation and increases cultural accessibility for families from a broad range of backgrounds. This brief screening tool could help clinicians more efficiently identify autism among toddlers already referred for developmental evaluation, facilitating timely referral for formal diagnostic confirmation and subsequent access to intervention services.