Study: Genetics explain most cases of autism

[Anonymous]

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/09/26/Study-Genetics-explain-most-cases-of-autism/4551506475474/

This doesn't surprise me. It's good to have studies back this up.



TUESDAY, Sept. 26, 2017 -- Heredity contributes to about 83 percent of the risk of autism in children with the disorder, a new study suggests.

The estimate, from a re-analysis of a previous study, adds a new wrinkle to the ongoing debate over how much autism is inherited from parents. Essentially, the findings suggest that rare genetic traits combine in parents and explain about eight in 10 cases of the neurodevelopmental disorder in children.

[Anonymous]

Well, except it doesn't exactly move the ball forward.

"Sandin, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, noted that the findings also don't reflect anything about the reported increases in autism rates in recent years. The higher rates must have something to do with increased awareness or environmental factors, "and our study cannot shed any light on this," he said."

Those are the major questions

[Anonymous]

How much of the increased numbers are related to increase awareness and better diagnosis?

For example, my now young adult nephew has aspergers. He is moderately functional in a failure to launch kind of way.

My dad (in his early 70s) is exactly like my nephew. Clearly, my dad has aspergers too. However, he does not have an aspergers diagnosis and does not consider himself to be on the spectrum or anything but himself. When he was growing up, he was known as "different" or "difficult" or a "do nothing" kid. It was "Billy kind of does his own thing" not "Billy needs a diagnosis so he can get services." Had he grown up in the past 15-20 years, my dad would have clearly had a diagnosis on the spectrum.

The same with learning abilities. My brother (almost 50) had some kind of learning disability growing up. Yet no one thought to make accoodations or seek out a diagnosis. It was always "Bobby is a little slow/stupid/not working to potential."

I think our awareness and the availability of services has greatly inflated the numbers of kids considered on the spectrum from one-two generations ago.

[Anonymous]

Didnt a study from korea come out this week determining that most cases are from bacteria in the mothers gut, they even pinpoint where in the brain is effected during fetal developent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much of the increased numbers are related to increase awareness and better diagnosis?

For example, my now young adult nephew has aspergers. He is moderately functional in a failure to launch kind of way.

My dad (in his early 70s) is exactly like my nephew. Clearly, my dad has aspergers too. However, he does not have an aspergers diagnosis and does not consider himself to be on the spectrum or anything but himself. When he was growing up, he was known as "different" or "difficult" or a "do nothing" kid. It was "Billy kind of does his own thing" not "Billy needs a diagnosis so he can get services." Had he grown up in the past 15-20 years, my dad would have clearly had a diagnosis on the spectrum.

The same with learning abilities. My brother (almost 50) had some kind of learning disability growing up. Yet no one thought to make accoodations or seek out a diagnosis. It was always "Bobby is a little slow/stupid/not working to potential."

I think our awareness and the availability of services has greatly inflated the numbers of kids considered on the spectrum from one-two generations ago.

Completely agree. My mother was just rigid and difficult and precocious as a child. She was a neat-nick who kept all her dolls and clothing in bags and reorganized them when she played. This was seen as odd but not something requiring a diagnosis. As I was growing up, I constantly had to explain jokes to her because she was so literal. There are a ton of these stories I could tell you that all point to a modern day diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didnt a study from korea come out this week determining that most cases are from bacteria in the mothers gut, they even pinpoint where in the brain is effected during fetal developent.

They found that if the mother has an infection during pregnancy, the risk of autism is increased because the infection can cause inflammation in a certain part of the brain. The research didn't establish how many cases of autism are actually cased by this mechanism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, except it doesn't exactly move the ball forward.

"Sandin, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, noted that the findings also don't reflect anything about the reported increases in autism rates in recent years. The higher rates must have something to do with increased awareness or environmental factors, "and our study cannot shed any light on this," he said."

Those are the major questions

Rising numbers is also correlated to IEP labels which aren't medical but are legislative designations.

[Anonymous]

Could our modern mobile society and the internet contribute to the rising number of cases? People are now able to find and marry people who are more similar to themselves, thereby concentrating any genetic tendencies.

[Anonymous]

It's called assortative mating. Simon baron-cohen wrote about it.

[Anonymous]

So is diabetics and heart disease and cancer and alcoholism and anxieties and depression.

But that does not mean that we can't do something preventative to give each child the most positive outcome.

You may find there is a treatment or something preventative to keep this "genetic marker" from becoming debilitating.

I am dyslexic ... Guess what I was told I was stupid. You think that is okay? No. It's not. 2 of my brothers are dyslexic and were told they were stupid. Neither went to college. Not because they couldn't but because they were told they couldn't. Is that okay? No it is not. My kids are both dyslexic and they had early intervention and are thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is diabetics and heart disease and cancer and alcoholism and anxieties and depression.

But that does not mean that we can't do something preventative to give each child the most positive outcome.

You may find there is a treatment or something preventative to keep this "genetic marker" from becoming debilitating.

I am dyslexic ... Guess what I was told I was stupid. You think that is okay? No. It's not. 2 of my brothers are dyslexic and were told they were stupid. Neither went to college. Not because they couldn't but because they were told they couldn't. Is that okay? No it is not. My kids are both dyslexic and they had early intervention and are thriving.

I don't see anyone arguing that all diseases with genetic components are lost causes. I think that chip on your shoulder is coloring your view pretty aggressively.

[Anonymous]

I also think that for kids on the milder end of the spectrum, the dramatic changes to our education system in the last few decades make a huge difference. My ADHD son had no issues at his relaxed outdoor-education K-1st program, but once he aged out and transitioned to a more traditional school with significant desk-work and less physical activity he began to struggle. And that was a private school that still had 3 recesses per day and no testing. If you had a kid like mine at a daycare or play-based preschool and put him into a standard public K with a big class, one recess per day and lots of emphasis on reading (and sitting), he would crash and burn. The standard experience in K 30 or 40 years ago was much more like the play-based preschools of today.

[Anonymous]

Studies have shown that yesterday's learning disabled kids or those who are cognitively impaired (the old 'mentally retarded") are today labeled as ASD.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/autism/2985

"My research indicates that the increase in the number of kids with an autism label in special education is strongly associated with a declining usage of the mental retardation and learning disabilities labels in special education during the same period," said Paul T. Shattuck Ph.D., MSSW, a pediatrics researcher at the University of Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think that for kids on the milder end of the spectrum, the dramatic changes to our education system in the last few decades make a huge difference. My ADHD son had no issues at his relaxed outdoor-education K-1st program, but once he aged out and transitioned to a more traditional school with significant desk-work and less physical activity he began to struggle. And that was a private school that still had 3 recesses per day and no testing. If you had a kid like mine at a daycare or play-based preschool and put him into a standard public K with a big class, one recess per day and lots of emphasis on reading (and sitting), he would crash and burn. The standard experience in K 30 or 40 years ago was much more like the play-based preschools of today.

Also the fact that 40 years ago, most kids wouldn't have spent much time in an early childhood education setting. My DS is adhd-hyperactive, bordering on aspergers. Because of my job, he's had to be a 8-4pm preschool setting since he was 2. My father clearly has a very similar profile, but the first time he would have set foot in a school setting would have been K. And even then, it was only a half day. And before K, they wouldn't have done any organized activities (like music together, library reading time, etc). Their only interaction with other kids would have been if his mom went over for coffee to the next door neighbor, and the kids played for an hour. Also, more schools used to have kids be eligible for K based on a January 1 birthday, but now a lot of programs have shifted to Sept 1. That means the K kids' starting age is 9 months younger than the average age was when I was growing up. So my son has been in a high demands setting for 3 years of preschool and a full day Kindergarten -- and finished all that, on average, 9 months before my dad's generation would have even started a full day of school in 1st grade.

My DS had to get a diagnosis at 2-3, because he was unable to function in the settings he was in. But if I were a mom in 1950, the first time he would have been "tested" in any way was K -- and by age almost-6, my son could have probably skirted through 4 hours of K a day, and by 1st grade (almost age 7 in the 1950s cutoffs) would have been even more equipped to get through a 7 hour school day. By 7 or 8, I think my son probably won't need medication. So in 1950, his problems might have evaded notice altogether.

[Anonymous]

I thought the author of Neurotribes did a good job in explaining why it appears that there are more cases now. He presents it as a function of several factors—the formal recognition of the spectrum to include both Asperger's and Kanner autism (something that would have happened sooner but was derailed by WWII and professional politics) as well as the broadening of criteria when the DSM was updated to reflect that.

Essentially, as others have said: not more now, just under-recognized in the past.