Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Friday March 28 2014, @06:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-cares-what-Jenny-McCarthy-thinks dept.

GungnirSniper writes:

An abstract of a study released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that the study's "2010 [Autism Spectrum Disorder] prevalence estimate of 14.7 per 1,000 (95% CI = 14.3-15.1), or one in 68 children aged 8 years, was 29% higher than the preceding estimate of 11.3 per 1,000 (95% CI = 11.0-11.7), or one in 88 children aged 8 years in 2008." Of the sites surveyed, four counties in New Jersey had the highest prevalence estimate, with 21.9 per 1,000 (95% CI = 20.4-23.6).

National Public Radio quotes CDC experts that "skyrocketing estimates don't necessarily mean that kids are more likely to have autism now than they were 10 years ago."

"It may be that we're getting better at identifying autism," says , director of the CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
Researchers say intervention in early childhood may help the developing brain compensate by rewiring to work around the trouble spots.

Another abstract of a "small, explorative study" from The New England Journal of Medicine describes Patches of Disorganization in the Neocortex of Children with Autism and suggests "a probable dysregulation of layer formation and layer-specific neuronal differentiation at prenatal developmental stages." CBS News demystifies the study as "brain abnormalities may begin in utero." [Ed's note: Link intermittent]

Last month, we discussed findings that suggest that delaying fatherhood may increase the risk of fathering children with disorders including Autism.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday March 28 2014, @09:15PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday March 28 2014, @09:15PM (#22706) Journal

    The study by the CDC was done in 2010, so the later re-definition shouldn't impact it. The general trends are also increasing, so the results were not surprising.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Daiv on Friday March 28 2014, @10:23PM

    by Daiv (3940) on Friday March 28 2014, @10:23PM (#22734)

    You are technically correct, but consider the DSM isn't the leading edge. The ADA tends to follow the trend of medicine when the majority of opinions shift. So by 2010, the number of medical professionals were already redefining what they considered autism (I understand it's a spectrum, but my point stands regardless) and so the APA was already being pressured to redefine it. By 2012, presumably the APA got enough pressure to make it official. These CDC studies were done on the upswing in diagnosing and attention, so of course more doctors were aware of it.

    The takeaway did a great story here ( ens-if-we-define-autism-new-ways/) and I wish I could find an even better story I had heard, but the internet is too big and I'm busy.

    The result is definitely not surprising and this will draw more attention to the subject at hand. Ridding the world of all the shitty associations people have with autism isn't gonna happen any time soon, but this is a start.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday March 29 2014, @04:26AM

    by dry (223) on Saturday March 29 2014, @04:26AM (#22824) Journal

    While diagnosis has changed, we were still getting diagnosed back in the day. I got evaluated in '68 as oxygen deprived during birth, my son got evaluated in '98 as autistic. We both have the same sort of problems though I started talking at 4 and he didn't start talking until 6 and in general he is somewhat further along the spectrum then I am.