Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by desgua on Saturday March 29 2014, @12:43AM

    by desgua (876) on Saturday March 29 2014, @12:43AM (#22767)

    From the mentioned article (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6302.pdf):

    "The findings in this report are subject to at least five
    limitations. First, although data in this report were obtained
    through the largest ongoing investigation of ASD prevalence
    in the United States, the surveillance sites were not selected
    to be representative of the entire United States, nor were they
    selected to be representative of the states in which they are
    located. Limitations regarding population size and racial/ethnic
    distribution among sites were considered when interpreting
    results. However, differences by sex and race/ethnicity reported
    in the overall findings might be confounded by site, and these
    patterns might not be universal among all sites.
    Second, population denominators used for this report were
    based on the 2010 decennial census. Decennial population
    counts are considered to be more accurate than postcensal
    estimates, which are modeled for years following a decennial
    census and for intercensal estimates, which are modeled for
    years in between the two most recent decennial census counts
    (28). ADDM reports from nondecennial surveillance years
    such as 2002, 2006, and 2008 are likely influenced by greater
    error in the population denominators used for those previous
    surveillance years, which were based on postcensal estimates. For
    this reason and others described previously, comparisons with
    previous ADDM findings should be interpreted with caution.
    The method of adjusting census counts using school enrollment
    data, as described in the analytic methods section of this report,
    introduces another source of denominator error specific to the
    Arizona ADDM site.
    Third, three of the nine sites with access to review children’s
    education records did not receive permission to do so in all
    individual school districts within the site’s overall surveillance
    area. In North Carolina, the impact of this could be addressed
    in the evaluation of missing records, and because the school
    districts participating in this study comprised the vast majority
    (>90%) of the overall population covered by the North
    Carolina ADDM site, prevalence estimates for North Carolina
    were similar whether including or excluding the geographic
    area encompassed by the nonparticipating school district.
    In Colorado, the participating school districts comprised
    a relatively small portion (10%) of the overall population
    covered by the Colorado ADDM site. Consistent with the
    results from Colorado as reported for the 2008 surveillance year
    (11), prevalence estimates for the geographic area encompassed
    by the participating school districts were higher than for the
    overall surveillance area. In Alabama, where the participating
    school districts also comprised a relatively small portion (about
    10%) of the overall population covered, prevalence estimates
    for the geographic areas encompassed by participating school
    districts were similar to those from the remainder of the overall
    surveillance area. For all three of these sites, the extent to which
    these comparisons reflect completeness of case ascertainment
    or geographic differences such as regional and socioeconomic
    disparities in access to services is uncertain. Study of this topic
    in much greater depth is planned.
    Fourth, all results describing intellectual ability were
    restricted to sites that had these data for at least 70% of children
    with ASD, with the proportion ranging from 76% to 96%.
    Therefore, findings that address intellectual ability might not
    be generalizable to all ADDM sites or, among the seven sites
    reporting data on intellectual ability, to those children with
    ASD for whom these data were not available.
    Finally, throughout this report, race and ethnicity are
    presented in very broad terms and should not be interpreted
    as generalizable to all persons within those categories. For
    example, children were categorized as Hispanic regardless
    of their racial group or geographic origin, which might
    differ among ADDM sites. Likewise, other attributes such
    as socioeconomic status might differ widely among children
    categorized in any single category of race/ethnicity."