## 2 Background Knowledge
### Traditional Diagnostic Methodologies  
Traditional diagnostic methodologies for ASD have been the cornerstone of clinical practice for many years, providing valuable insights and reliable assessments. Commonly used tools include the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) [12] and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) [13; 14; 15], both of which involve detailed evaluations conducted by trained professionals. The ADI-R is a structured interview with caregivers, designed to gather detailed information about developmental history and current behaviors in areas such as social interaction, communication, and restricted or repetitive behaviors. It is particularly effective for individuals aged 18 months and older and aligns with diagnostic criteria from the DSM [16] and ICD [17]. The ADOS, on the other hand, is a semi-structured assessment that involves direct observation of an individual's behavior during structured and unstructured activities. It evaluates communication, social interaction, and play behaviors, with modules tailored to different age groups and language levels. Together, these tools offer a comprehensive approach by combining caregiver insights with real-time behavioral observations [18]. These methodologies have proven to be effective in identifying core symptoms and guiding interventions, establishing a foundation for understanding and addressing ASD. Despite their long-standing validity, these approaches are not without limitations. They can be time-intensive, often requiring lengthy observation and evaluation sessions, which may hinder their scalability and accessibility, especially in underserved regions [19; 20]. Specifically, traditional methodologies can be limited by the following:  
* Delayed Diagnosis: The combination of subjectivity, time constraints, and limited access can lead to significant delays in diagnosis. This delay can have cascading effects, as early intervention is crucial to improving long-term outcomes for people with ASD [21].
* Clinician Subjectivity: Traditional diagnostic methodologies heavily rely on clinicians' observations and interpretations of a child's behavior. This introduces the risk of subjective bias, as clinicians can perceive and interpret the same behavior differently based on their experience, training, or unconscious biases [22].
* Environmental Variability: A child's behavior can fluctuate depending on the environment or even the time of day. Traditional assessments, often conducted in unfamiliar clinical settings, may not accurately capture a child's typical behavior patterns in naturalistic settings [23].
* Cultural Considerations: Perceptions of \"typical\" behavior can vary across cultures. Traditional assessments may not consistently account for these cultural differences, potentially leading to misinterpretations of behavior in children from diverse backgrounds [24].
* Assessment Burden: Traditional diagnostic assessments often require multiple observation and interaction sessions with the child. This can be time-consuming for both the clinician and the family, potentially creating barriers to timely diagnosis and intervention [19].
* Accessibility Challenges: The requirement for specialized clinicians and resources for traditional assessments can create disparities in access to diagnosis, particularly in rural or underserved communities with limited healthcare infrastructure [25].