"specific clinical and neuropsychological dimensions might be related to suicidal behaviors in ASD"

The quote titling this post - "specific clinical and neuropsychological dimensions might be related to suicidal behaviors in ASD [autism spectrum disorder]" - comes from the findings reported by Luisa Weiner and colleagues [1] (open-access). It adds to other recent research talking about how elements of autism *might* associate with suicidality (see here). I should warn you that some of the Weiner findings make for difficult reading.

Authors described a case report of "a 21-year-old male [Mr A] with ASD who attempted suicide twice, in the absence of other psychiatric diagnoses." They detail how, following some quite comprehensive observations, a possible *connection* was noted between his suicidality and "some of the core clinical and neuropsychological features of ASD."

A few important points are highlighted in the Weiner study: "Mr. A. reported that his suicidal thoughts started when he was 18, following an unrequited infatuation with a classmate – the result of a rational decision: he had decided to “fall in love” with her." Things did not however go as he planned, as we are told that: "He started having “obsessive negative thoughts”, and attempted suicide by jumping from a window." He survived but "his suicidal thoughts lingered, characterized by a restrictive, rigid pattern."

Researchers relied on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to rule out depression in this case: his score "was in the normal range (3/63)." This inventory is one of a few that have been described as being "robust in their measurement properties in the general population" [2] but with perhaps more to do in the context of its use in autism. In the absence of depression or rather elevated self-report scores indicative of depression, authors suggest this raises "the question of whether the persistence of suicidal thoughts was associated with ASD-related features."

The Weiner findings have to be placed in the context of other independent research looking at suicidality and autism. First, risk of suicidality is seemingly heightened when autism is diagnosed (see here). Second, although depression - an important variable *linked* to suicidality - is over-represented in relation to autism (see here), questions are still being asked about the impact of depression in relation to suicidality accompanying autism in the context of an often complicated clinical picture (see here). Third, the idea that the features/traits of autism might themselves be independent predictors of suicidality in autism has been discussed on several research occasions (see here and see here and see here).

The culmination of all this work is that quite a lot more research and clinical resources need to be ploughed into looking at suicidality and autism. And, importantly, translating said research into real-world actions to potentially save lives.

If you need someone to talk to, there are organisations out there...

----------

[1] Weiner L. et al. A case study of suicidality presenting as a restricted interest in autism Spectrum disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2019; 19: 126.

[2] Cassidy SA. et al. Measurement properties of tools used to assess depression in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions: A systematic review. Autism Res. 2018 May;11(5):738-754.

----------

"In the milder forms I think it's just a personality variant." Temple Grandin on autism

I draw your attention today to the transcript of an interview (see here) between a Scottish broadcaster, Rona Dougall, and Dr/Prof.Temple Grandin, following Prof. Grandin's recent appearance (Spring 2019) at a conference in Scotland.

The transcript provides readers with quite a lot of insight into Prof. Grandin's views about autism; both from a personal perspective of being diagnosed with autism (and perhaps being one of the most well-known autistic people) and also with reference to some wider discussions about autism.

Alongside the important message that Grandin wants to "see people that learn differently, people that might be labelled with autism getting good jobs" one particular part of the interview stuck out for me: "Rona: How do you define and diagnose autism? Temple: In the milder forms I think it's just a personality variant. In the more severe forms, where the individual remains nonverbal, that is definitely a disability."

I was interested in the notion that 'milder forms' of autism were seen as akin to "a personality variant" by Grandin, whilst more 'severe forms' were labelled "definitely a disability." Interested because, there are some on-going debates in various circles about (a) how one should 'classify' autism from the point of view of how much of an impact symptoms have on daily living, and (b) how the presentation of autistic traits are not solely confined to a diagnosis of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

On the first point about 'classifying' autism, there is, as I say, debate about how symptoms can variably present and how best to describe the 'differences' between someone diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum who for example, is verbal, is able to navigate the social world to some degree, hold down a job and perhaps raise a family, compared with someone who has no (verbal) language, requires a high level of daily living support and who is likely to need lifelong assistance and support for sometimes simple tasks. Such heterogeneity has been present for many years under the diagnostic label of autism; further compounded by the recent-ish disappearance of Asperger syndrome in current and planned diagnostic texts (see here and see here).

The commonly used terms 'high-functioning' and 'low-functioning' don't seemingly provide the necessary words to differentiate 'levels of autism'; also being perhaps a little demeaning to those they are meant to represent. Outside of the negative connotations of 'low-functioning', one can perhaps see how 'high-functioning' as a term for 'can function' does not always convey the real-life message when it comes to the presentation of autism. I'm thinking specifically about the issue of suicidality and autism for example (see here) and the shocking statistics that continue to emerge. Likewise, to talk about autism in the context of 'severity' comes up against similar obstacles. 'Severe autism' could potentially describe anyone on the autism spectrum during moments of 'meltdown' for example. Indeed, the 'high-functioning' non-severe autistic child who just got handed a school exclusion for having an aggressive meltdown (yes, I said aggression) in class may very well be described as having severe autism in the same way that a 'low-functioning' child screaming and banging their head whilst covering their ears may thus be described. The endpoint in both cases being that autism is significantly and severely affecting both their lives at that point. I firmly believe a lot more thought needs to go into such 'classification' issues (see here) including more mention of the concept of 'profoundness' and perhaps further utilisation of the DSM-5 'support gradings' (see here) which have been installed.

Insofar as the second point covering 'mild' autism as a 'personality variant' and the issue that the label autism does not have exclusive rights to the presentation of autistic traits, another area of interest opens up. I've talked quite a bit on this blog about how autistic features / traits / symptoms are readily seen across a whole variety of different labels (see here and see here) and what this means for the concept of 'self-diagnosis' for example, that is sometimes seen / discussed on social media in particular (see here). Drawing specifically on the presentation of autistic traits in something like borderline personality disorder (BPD) [1] one could very well express an opinion that yes, autism in some cases may well be akin to a personality variant. Such a line of reasoning fits well with the (still emerging) concept of neurodiversity as applied to autism (see here) where autism is viewed as a "natural variation" [2].

But then the questions arise: at what point does autism cease to be a 'personality variant' to then becoming 'definitely a disability'? Is it just based on the acquisition of spoken language? Grandin does mention a few times in the interview about autism "in the milder forms, where the person is fully verbal" so perhaps showing an inclination towards a view that spoken language use is an important measure to differentiate differences vs. disability. But does reliance on spoken language use offer enough to make such a differentiation? Are their other facets of autism (or combinations of facets) which could better reflect any difference vs. disability arguments?

Personally, I'm not inclined to believe that there is a personality variant vs. definite disability debate to be had when it comes to autism. Formal receipt of a diagnosis is based not only on the presentation of autistic features or traits but also that such traits "cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning." If one was to say that some autism is just a personality variation, it could for example, dissipate the meaning of autism and the supports that are required. The risk of 'diluting' an important message about the need for those services and resources to ensure that people across the autism spectrum and their loved ones get the help and support they need to have a good quality of life is not a risk, in my view, worth taking.

----------

[1] Dell'Osso L. et al. Correlates of autistic traits among patients with borderline personality disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2018; 83: 7-11.

[2] den Houting J. Neurodiversity: An insider's perspective. Autism. 2019 Feb;23(2):271-273.

----------

"Ruminative thinking is the autistic dimension more strongly associated with suicidality"

The quote titling this post - "Ruminative thinking is the autistic dimension more strongly associated with suicidality" - comes from the findings published by Liliana Dell'Osso and colleagues [1] and provides something of an extension of previous work from authors on this paper (see here).

The important topic under investigation by Dell'Osso et al was suicidality; something that crops up time and time again in connection to the autism spectrum (see here). No, such a topic doesn't make for great PR 'about autism'. But if you want to talk about research/clinical priorities when it comes to the autism spectrum, I can't think of many topics that would be more pressing...

The hypothesis: those with subthreshold autistic traits (AT) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) "will both show a higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and behaviors" when compared with asymptomatic controls. Further: "to clarify if AT do actually imply a risk factor for suicidality similar to full-blown ASD, hypothesizing that suicidal thoughts and behaviors will not differ between subjects with subthreshold autism and full-blown ASD." Similar sentiments have been previously expressed in other research results (see here and see here and see here).

I won't bore you with all the details of the hows-and-whys of Dell'Osso study (it is open-access) but do want to focus in on a few important observations made. First authors reported that they "found no differences in suicidality scores between ASD and AT groups, while both showed a higher score than HC [healthy controls]." I might add that 'HC' is a term used by the authors and wouldn't be my choice for describing a control group. This finding is important not just for autism but potentially for lots of other labels that manifest autistic traits (see here and see here) on the basis that autistic traits are not necessarily exclusive to a diagnosis of autism.

Second: "the ASD group reported significantly higher MOODS-SR total score and MOODS-SR depressive component score than the AT group, and the AT group in turn scored significantly higher than the HC." I don't think anyone should be really surprised by the finding that the symptoms of mood disorders such as depression seem to be 'over-represented' alongside a diagnosis of autism given other data on this issue (see here). Indeed, one might even say that depression could, for some autistic people, be considered a core issue over and above just being described as a comorbidity (see here).

Finally I head back to the title of this post, and how something like ruminative thinking - "a pattern of repetitive thinking, usually associated to and exacerbating anxiety and depression, often affecting problem-solving and the processing of negative feelings and leading to social isolation" - might be a particular dimension *associated* with suicidality in the context of autism or the presentation of subthreshold autistic traits. I've talked a few times about rumination in the context of autism on this blog (see here and see here). Rumination has also been talked about in the context of autism and suicide before too (see here). If research continues to point to rumination as something important, one might potentially envisage the development of interventions that could ameliorate such an issue and possibly onward *affect* the risk of something like suicidality?

I don't want anyone to get the impression that the Dell'Osso findings have *solved* the issue of suicidality in the context of autism because they haven't. As I've said many times before on this blog, suicide is a very, very complicated and deeply personal issue (see here) with no one-size-fits-all answer to the questions it raises. As part of a larger picture however, the Dell'Osso results are however important. If their application in a clinical context saves even one life, I would consider that to be infinitely worthwhile.

If anyone needs someone to talk to, there are people who will listen (see here and see here)...

----------

[1] Dell'Osso L. et al. Mood symptoms and suicidality across the autism spectrum. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2019. April 3.

----------

"Neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal vitamin D in humans"

The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis published by Azahara García-Serna & Eva Morales [1] provide the blogging fodder today.

Their aim was to summarise the collected peer-reviewed research evidence pertinent to "the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels in maternal blood in pregnancy or newborn blood at birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including cognition, psychomotor performance, language development, behavioral difficulties, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autistic traits." This coming from authors who already have some research 'form' in this area (see here).

Twenty-five studies ("articles") were included in their boiling-down-of-the-relevant-research-literature published up to May 2018. From the combined data, a few *associations* were detected: "Comparing the highest vs. the lowest category of prenatal 25(OH)D levels, the pooled beta coefficients were 0.95... for cognition, and 0.88... for psychomotor development. The pooled relative risk for ADHD was 0.72..., and the pooled odds ratio for autism-related traits was 0.42." What this meant is that measured higher levels of vitamin D in pregnant mums-to-be or in offspring newborn blood correlated with "improved cognitive development and reduced risk of ADHD and autism-related traits later in life" for offspring.

Of course one has to be careful with such data whether it comes from a meta-analysis or not. We're still talking about observational studies where one variable (vitamin D) is being analysed in the context of one or a few others (related to offspring development). Yes, researchers can control for this potential confounder or that potential confounder, but there remains a 101 other variables that likely affect the likelihood of ADHD or 'autism-related traits' appearing, not least biology and genetics.

That being said, the García-Serna / Morales are potentially important. They point to the need for further research into various possibly interlinked areas when it comes to vitamin D levels and their intake. This follows Government guidance (at least here in Blighty) suggesting that many people should be taking a vitamin D supplement already (see here). I'm also minded to suggest that future investigations should also be looking at other related areas around vitamin D such as the various genetic processes that seem to be important to vitamin D levels and the metabolism of the sunshine vitamin (see here).

And if you're still not convinced by the potential effects of vitamin D and offspring outcomes, perhaps the findings - systematic review findings - published by Janet Janbek and colleagues [2] might help sway you a little...

----------

[1] García-Serna A. & Morales E. Neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal vitamin D in humans: systematic review and meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry. 2019. Jan 25.

[2] Janbek J. et al. Associations between vitamin D status in pregnancy and offspring neurodevelopment: a systematic literature review.  Nutr Rev. 2019 Feb 26. pii: nuy071.

----------

"...although their autistic traits were sometimes helpful, at other times they hindered their progress"

There's quite a lot of important information to be gleaned from the findings reported by Ginny Russell and colleagues [1] (open-access) following their questioning of autistic adults (or adults with autism if you prefer) about how they viewed themselves. How for example, said participants viewed their abilities and how "these abilities had helped them in their everyday lives: at work, in their relationships with other people, and at home" makes for interesting firsthand reading.

I have quite a lot of time for the primary author on this paper given other research she has produced (see here) and her recent involvement in an important paper that basically said what many people had been thinking for a while: autism research is typically biased against those who present with autism and intellectual (learning) disability [2]. That last research theme seems to have been something (partially) taken on board in this recent paper from Russell et al given their inclusion of voices from various 'parts' of the autism spectrum including those "receiving high-level support (living in full-time residential care)."

So: "All but one participant was able to describe their own traits and how these had benefited them, and the majority of participants could and did attribute these to autism." Various traits were discussed in the interviews (n=28) held with participants (n=24); key among them were "perceptual differences, memory, focus, and attention to detail, logic, and vivid imagination." Interview data / responses were also coded into various themes: "(1) experience of difference, (2) false dichotomies, and (3) moderating influences" which similarly provided further interesting data.

In relation to the 'experience of difference' we are told that this theme "encompassed how participants conceptualized the causes of their difference from “neurotypical” (NT) individuals." Although I am less than enamoured with the misnomer that is 'neurotypical' (see here for some discussions on how there is no single way for a brain to be 'normal') there is some important information contained in those accounts. Specifically how "most participants talked about autism as a set of qualities they possessed rather than an illness they had."

The theme of 'false dichotomies' was equally revealing as: "Participants gave accounts of traits as advantageous and simultaneously disadvantageous in the workplace, in relationships, and at home." The phrase 'double-edged sword' seems to be particularly apt when it came to the descriptions offered by participants in the Russell study; also denoting how: "There was no boundary between a strength and a weakness." This continues a theme from other research discussed recently (see here). Interestingly too under this category, some participants reported that: "there is no “autism—self” opposition... thus [they] saw their abilities and skills more holistically as generalized personality traits, which included autistic traits." Autistic traits as part of a wider picture eh?

The final theme - "Moderating influences" - also included some interesting data. Authors defined this as: "Factors that might determine whether a participant experienced a trait as advantageous or disadvantageous were classified as moderating influences." Perhaps unsurprisingly, social context was something mentioned in this theme, with examples like serving in the army or being incarcerated in prison being places where "a lack of empathy" and "sticking to routines" respectively, were seen as the right places to present such behaviours. Personally I'd quibble that a lack of empathy is a good place for the armed forces given that serving in active theatre is only part of the job but ho-hum. Another important part of the 'moderating influences' theme was the issue of 'controllability and extent'. As per my musings on the issue of 'stimming' and autism (see here again) this is probably the best example of that 'double-edged sword'. How things like focus, attention to detail and logic whilst all very positive traits, can sometimes become 'out of control' and cause all-manner of issues to a person.

There are of course caveats to the Russell findings, not least that their study reflected "a lack of severely intellectually and language-impaired participants" and so results cannot be generalised to everyone on the autism spectrum. Indeed they offer a solution: "Eliciting the opinions of these groups would require a different approach, perhaps observational" which really should be a research priority (see here). I'd also have been interested to see data on the comorbidity profile of the participant group too, bearing in mind that autism rarely appears in some sort of diagnostic vacuum (see here). And I'm also minded to mention that similar to other discussions on the 'positives' of other diagnostic labels (see here) one has to remember that autistic traits are not just something noted alongside a diagnosis of autism, and what this means when using emotive terms like "autistic advantage". This, particularly in the context that autism is diagnosed on the basis of traits significantly impinging on functioning and daily life (see here).

I suppose the bottom line from the Russell findings is summed up pretty well in their conclusions: "The findings make us wary of describing autistic advantages as fixed traits, rather their expression (and development) is context dependent." In other words, things like 'situation' influence whether a trait is seen as a deficit or an advantage. And just because a trait might initially be start out as an advantage or a deficit does not mean that it will necessarily stay that way across many different situations and various different time periods...

----------

[1] Russell G. et al. Mapping the Autistic Advantage from the Accounts of Adults Diagnosed with Autism: A Qualitative Study. Autism in Adulthood. 2019. Apr 3.

[2] Russell G. et al. Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: a cross-sectional review and meta-analysis. Mol Autism. 2019 Mar 1;10:9.

----------

Why the words "every one of us hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum" are so dangerous

The Guardian, Friday 26th April 2019

Today I offer another post based on a newspaper report, as Greta Thunberg and her autism diagnosis continue to generate debate (see here).

This time around the report (letter) in question (see here) titled "Autism and Asperger’s are useless diagnostic labels" is the focus, and, in my opinion, quite a dangerous quote included in the text: "... every one of us hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum."

Why is it so dangerous to imply that the general population is just a (hovering) footstep away from autism spectrum you might ask? Well, I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that the behaviours noted in autism aren't something that's just magically present in those diagnosed. Such behaviours can be seen in various other states or conditions and/or across various different times of life and maturation. The thing that makes the presentation of such behaviours so distinct and worthy of a diagnosis of autism is the frequency and intensity of such behaviours and importantly, the way they significantly impinge on functioning and daily life. In that respect, yes, autistic behaviours are part of the complex and intricate tapestry of life. But the (sustained) frequency and impact of such behaviours distinguish autism from not-autism.

In such a context then, the idea that everyone hovers along the autism spectrum is a misnomer. It conflates the 'autistic behaviours are part of the complex and intricate tapestry of life' idea with the important reasons why an autism diagnosis is given. This is dangerous because it has the potential to belittle a diagnosis of autism and what it means to those in receipt of such a diagnosis; often a diagnosis that as taken months/years to finally receive. Indeed some people have suggested that the claim that 'everyone is on the autism spectrum' is an "absolute sin"...

It's also dangerous because such thinking opens the door to other things like the self-diagnosis of autism. I've talked about self-diagnosis quite a bit on this blog (see here and see here) and how, self-realisation is often an important (nay, crucial) step to getting an autism diagnosis for many. When however such self-realisation turns to self-identification and/or self-diagnosis on the basis of various 'are you autistic?' screens available on the Internet and beyond (see here), the side-stepping of formal assessments can lead to problems. Problems that can include potentially missing important conditions/states that seemingly overlap with autism or the presentation of autistic traits (see here and see here) as well as also skewing some important narratives from those who have been formally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and their experiences.

I know some people disagree with such a position. Some people think that the diagnostic criteria for autism are too stringent, too medically focused, or access to formal assessment/diagnostic services is too restricted and costly. I don't disagree that we need to do more to 'fill a gap' and ensure that those who might fulfil the diagnostic criteria (including the "significantly impinge on functioning and daily life" bit) should have access to the relevant professional assessment services. But that doesn't mean that anyone and everyone can or should just publicly label themselves as autistic in the meantime.

And finally, as we're learning from the evolution of the neurodiversity movement, autism is still very much to be seen as a disability (see here). So another possible implication of the "every one of us hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum" sentiment is that we are all somehow 'disabled' by our hovering along the autism spectrum. This is frankly a ridiculous suggestion and, continuing the theme of how dangerous such a sentiment is, could have some really serious consequences for the provision of resources and services for those who are genuinely disabled by facets of their autism. Words matter.

----------

NMDAR encephalitis presenting with "behavioral changes and some autistic features"

Anti N-methyl-D-aspartate (anti-NMDA) receptor encephalitis is yet again (see here) the blogging topic today, as I bring the case report published by Yasmin Khundakji and colleagues [1] to your attention. It's an important case report because, in keeping with the primary focus of this blog, the words 'autistic features' also appear in the Khundakji account. This follows quite a bit of other independent research where autism or autistic features has been mentioned in the context of NMDA receptor encephalitis (see here and see here).

The details? "The patient was a healthy girl" ('was' being the operative word). Some time before she was 2 years of age, she experienced some really quite sudden and stark behavioural changes "manifesting as bouts of irritability, aggression, inconsolable crying, and self-mutilatory behavior (self-biting)." A fever brought about various other somatic symptoms, as eye contact was lost and insomnia set in. "In addition, she developed a progressive regression in gross and fine motor skills and an inability to swallow" with seizures following. Things were getting really serious.

Various tests were carried out which in the most part came up within typical reference ranges (including a "brain MRI"). Someone had their suspicions that NMDA receptor encephalitis *might* fit with the presented profile. Lo and behold, following testing a positive result was received albeit "one month later" (samples had to be sent out of country for analysis). Interventions were put in place ("intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and intravenous methylprednisolone... plasma exchange... rituximab") with some being more successful than others. Of particular note: "A dramatic improvement in her social skills and irritability appeared within hours following plasma exchange." Interesting. Things did eventually improve for the young girl at the centre of the Khundakji paper as we are told that: "Apart from mild speech delay, her neurological exam and developmental milestones are normal."

What lessons can be learned from such case reports? How about starting with the idea that rapid onset childhood regression that includes 'autistic features' should always be investigated as a sign of unmet medical need such as a response to infection (see here)? Perhaps also acknowledge that the presentation of autism or autistic features is not a life-long, immutable, set-in-stone scenario for some people (see here and see here and see here)? And as for the effects of plasmapheresis (plasma exchange) on this particular young child linked to a "dramatic improvement in her social skills and irritability", I'm wondering whether there is a research study or two to be designed and conducted on this topic (with due care)?

----------

[1] Khundakji Y. et al. Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis in a toddler: A diagnostic challenge. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2018; 5: 75-77.

----------

"Anxiety and sleep problems may be an early indicator of autism in young children"

The quote titling this post - "Anxiety and sleep problems may be an early indicator of autism in young children" - comes from the findings reported by Jacqueline Uren and colleagues [1]. Researchers dipped into data derived from the Raine study initiative to investigate any "longitudinal associations between sleep and anxiety at 2 years and sleep and anxiety at 8 years controlling for demographic variables" and also "the additional influence of autistic traits at 2 years on sleep problems and anxiety at 8 years."

The Raine study has produced fodder for this blog before (see here and see here for examples). Described as "one of the largest successful prospective cohorts of pregnancy, childhood, adolescence and now early adulthood to be carried out anywhere in the world", the sample size is not to be sniffed at (~2900 pregnant women). It has provided a number of important longitudinal *associations* of interest.  Mention of the name Andrew Whitehouse on the paper authorship is also kinda expected given his interest in autism-related data derived from the Raine study in particular.

So: "Children's sleep and anxiety at 2 and 8 years and autistic traits at 2 years were measured using the Child Behavior Checklist." The data was crunched to assess for any possible associations. And associations there were, as we are told that: "Sleep problems at 2 years and 8 years, anxiety at 2 years, and autistic traits at 2 years were significantly associated with anxiety at 8 years." Further: "Sleep problems at 2 years and anxiety at 8 years were significantly related to sleep problems at 8 years." Such statements also led to that headline observing that anxiety and sleep issues *may* be an early indicator of childhood autism (with a stress on the *may*).

Of particular interest to me was the suggestion that "early autistic traits may also contribute to anxiety problems later in childhood." I say this because I am becoming more and more interested in how anxiety may be something much more 'core' to autism than many have hitherto believed (see here). Yes, there are those that might disagree (see here); perhaps using the 'social model' pathway and the notion that society shoulders a lot of responsibility for things like anxiety and depression in the context of autism (see here) as evidence for some 'acquired anxiety' effect. But the data is becoming compelling to suggest that for some 'types' of autism at least, anxiety may represent something of a core feature (in line with some previous thoughts on this matter [2]) and is present pretty early on for many. And in this respect, the way that one manages something like anxiety in the context of autism, may very much depend on looking at 'managing' certain other core autistic features...

----------

[1] Uren J. et al. Sleep problems and anxiety from 2 to 8 years and the influence of autistic traits: a longitudinal study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019 Jan 19.

[2] Evans B. How autism became autism. Hist Human Sci. 2013 Jul; 26(3): 3–31.

----------

"The neurodiversity movement is, arguably, still in its infancy"

The quote heading this post - "The neurodiversity movement is, arguably, still in its infancy" - comes from the paper published by Jacquiline den Houting [1] discussing the idea / concept / movement known as neurodiversity as applied to autism.

I wanted to talk about this article because it's fair to say that neurodiversity, with specific reference to the label / diagnosis / condition that is autism, has been a source of quite a bit of discussion down the years (see here for example) and probably will continue to be so for a while yet. Even by posting on this topic and perhaps offering something just a little bit critical of some facets of neurodiversity, one runs the risk that someone, somewhere will take offence, such is the strength of feeling about this topic. But being "still in it's infancy" perhaps means that the idea of neurodiversity is still being properly formulated and adapted. And respectful [critical] dialogue is an important part of that development process.

Although there are lots of different interpretations of what neurodiversity [currently] is and what it includes, I would probably suggest that the ideas that (a) all brains (and bodies) are different and (b) diagnostic labels such as autism "are the result of normal, natural variation in the human genome" are key to any description. It's also worth pointing out that under neurodiversity "autism is conceptualised using the social model of disability" as an alternative to the medical model. The difference between the models lies in 'where disability comes from'. The medical model focuses on the individual; the social model focuses on society at large.

den Houting set out "to debunk some of the misunderstandings of the neurodiversity movement" in her writings. The three areas that she focuses on are: "that the neurodiversity paradigm frames autism as a difference and a cultural identity, but not a disability... that the neurodiversity paradigm can only be appropriately applied to autistic people with lower support needs... that framing autism through the neurodiversity paradigm implies that autistic people do not require support, as neurodiversity would supposedly have us believe that autism is ‘just a natural variation’." She provides some important responses to those 'misunderstandings' which are truly refreshing to see. These include the ideas that "the social model of disability is not a panacea for all disabilities" and some additional commentary on the problematic use of functioning labels applied to autism (see here for other discussions on this topic). Throughout, the focus is on how "the insiders’ perspective on the neurodiversity paradigm" is important, and needs to be more readily incorporated into autism research and practice (see here and see here), also perhaps added to other important voices (see here).

Without trying to ruffle any feathers and importantly, accepting that people are entitled to their own viewpoints about autism, particularly those who are themselves autistic, I still have further questions to ask about the neurodiversity paradigm and some possible limitations of the current version of it in the context of autism.

So first, the social model of disability is important. As per one example I found about how society still does create barriers to disabled people (wheelchair users and stairs is the classic example), there is merit in saying that society is not always as inclusive as it should be. Society needs to do a lot more, particularly where disability might not be so obviously present. I am however always struck by the neurodiversity idea that the social model of disability should serve as a total replacement of the medical model of disability. Can the two models not seemingly co-exist? Is it not possible for example, that someone can be both disabled by autism, or facets of autism, and also be disabled by the way that society 'responds' to an autistic person / person with autism? If I take the wheelchair user example again and apply it to this 'shared' model, would it not be sensible to suggest that if there are the means to empower a person not to have to use a wheelchair all the time, they could be utilised alongside also providing a ramp access if and when it is needed? Or should an important intervention that could potentially help someone to walk unaided for example, be discarded just to fit a sociological narrative? Now apply similar sentiments to autism and say someone who has crushing anxiety as a prominent feature (see here) where there may be options worth considering for some (see here). And just before you say anxiety is not a core feature of autism, I'd be minded to suggest that it may very well be intricately connected to core autistic features (see here and see here)...

Related to that last thread are the discussions about autism and natural genetic variation and how this plays out in relation to support and intervention, particularly when: "Conflict between critics and neurodiversity advocates in the debate over support and interventions tends to centre on the end goal of such interventions." den Houting uses some pretty sweeping language when concluding that: "Critics often (either explicitly or implicitly) promote reducing or eliminating autistic traits as a key priority of intervention." Such a line of thought ties into the idea of autistic identity that has followed neurodiversity; highlighting how autism is often seen as something 'central' to a person and perhaps impacts on how that person wants to be perceived by the world at large (see here). The logical notion is that any intervention to try and *change* autism represents an attempt to try and change something fundamental about a person.

Although I can't speak for every person who has ever or continues to involve themselves in autism research, particularly autism research geared toward intervention, I've often thought of the idea of 'eliminating autistic traits' as a rather sweeping generalisation. Most researchers understand that (a) there is no behaviour seen in autism that is not potentially seen in some measure in the 'not-autism' population at some point during a lifetime, and (b) the diagnosis of autism relies on the fact that autistic behaviours are present to an extent that they "cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning." I might add that point (a) is NOT in any way supporting throwaway phrases like 'we're all a little but autistic'. If aspects of autism are however so 'clinically significantly' impairing, I don't see why the choice to potentially reduce or alleviate certain issues shouldn't be offered if and when a suitable - safe and effective - intervention becomes available. Not to do so would perhaps constitute discrimination and represent a further inequality. Bear also in mind that a diagnosis of autism rarely exists in some sort of diagnostic vacuum (see here). As I've already mentioned, the presentation of certain 'comorbid' conditions may very well be intricately *related* to certain core facets of autism (see here and see here) as per what has been noted in the peer-reviewed literature on rare genetic conditions manifesting autism plus other issues (see here for one example). With increasing recognition of these points, the discussions about the ethics of 'reducing autistic traits' turn out to be a little more complicated than one might originally think. I might also add at this point that neurodiversity doesn't seem to much like the ideas that not all autism is wholly genetic (see here) and/or present from birth or before (see here).

I'd suggest that the authors call for "services aimed at improving subjective quality of life and well-being while respecting and preserving autistic ways of being" is also not at odds with other research and practice aims and objectives. It's perfectly acceptable to look at how autistic traits and features might positively impact on a person and try and disentangle them from other traits that might be rather more disabling and could perhaps be amenable to some sort of intervention if wanted/required. Indeed, with initiatives such as the development of the ICF cores sets for autism, there is already a potential plan of action under such a heading (see here). And yes, the words "provided at the request and with the consent of the autistic person in question" are absolutely to be respected.

I have to say that in all I've read about neurodiversity and autism down the years, the key themes that jump out to me about why this idea is so readily acceptable to so many are the concepts of respect and belonging. Respect as in ensuring that a person is valued as a person and not some sort of clinical entity or diagnosis to be 'researched' and belonging insofar as neurodiversity offering an identity and perhaps even kinship for many people with many different 'medicalised' labels. It's impossible to know the personal histories and circumstances of everyone who subscribes to the concept of neurodiversity (whatever they see this as), but after hearing many challenging stories of childhood and early adulthood adversities faced by those on the autism spectrum, finding some sort of 'belonging' would seem to be an important part of the draw of neurodiversity (and probably why neurodivesity flourishes on social media platforms). Indeed as the author herself once said in an interview: 'Find your tribe'. From those points of view, neurodiversity does offer something valid to autism and beyond.

I can't however brush over certain aspects of neurodiversity including the wholly social model view of disability that it strives to adopt. It's quite evident that the obstacles posed by society do impact people, but probably not with any less of an effect on some autistic people as their autistic features do. I speak particularly of those who present with significant difficulties that mean a life of constant care and supervision; something perhaps described as level 3 in the latest DSM-5 criteria for autism (see here). Indeed, one could argue that where autism for example, means a lifetime of parental guardianship and/or residential care and support, society is generally at its most 'ableing' in providing such services and support. Not always, and improvements are always required (see here), but generally speaking society is not the universally disabling monster that some would have it labelled as.

Finally I can't mention neurodiversity without also mentioning an unfortunate word: 'neurotypical' also known as NT. As I've said before, the misnomer known as 'neurotypical' (see here), thankfully only mentioned twice in the den Houting paper, is something that seems to be synonymous with neurodiversity, despite being a tad counter-intuitive [2] (typicality in diversity?). If neurodiversity wants to perhaps evolve further, distancing itself from the nonsense that there is such a thing as 'neurotypical' within the vast ever-changing individual complexity of the brain and central nervous system (CNS) is perhaps as a good a first step as any to take.

----------

[1] den Houting J. Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism. 2018. Dec 17.

[2] Armstrong T. The myth of the normal brain: embracing neurodiversity. AMA J Ethics. 2015 Apr 1;17(4):348-52.

----------

"hold promise as cross-cultural key indicators for autism"

The quote heading this post - "hold promise as cross-cultural key indicators for autism" - comes from the paper by Sophie Carruthers and colleagues [1] which "aimed to identify the items on the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ)-Child that are most predictive of an autism diagnosis among children aged 4–9 years across samples from India, Japan and the UK." Attempting to fill quite an important 'hole' in the use of the go-to 'are you autistic' screener, authors set out to look at the presentation of autistic traits across three different countries, all with some quite different cultural perspectives and contexts.

The Carruthers paper is open-access so doesn't need too many grand discussions from me. The basics: "parent-reported AQ-Child data from India (73 children with an autism diagnosis and 81 neurotypical children), Japan (116 children with autism and 190 neurotypical children) and the UK (488 children with autism and 532 neurotypical children)" was the source material. Once again I'll mention how the term neurotypical is a misnomer (see here); it's use in this paper is all the more surprising given that one of the authors wrote an editorial paper [2] mentioning how "there is no single way for a brain to be normal, as there are many ways for the brain to be wired up and reach adulthood." Oh well.

Results: from the collected data, researchers were able to undertake various statistical analyses. Pertinent to the quote titling this post were some important findings "identified to be universal key indicators" across the different countries and cultures. These were: "In a social group, s/he can easily keep track of several different people’s conversations; s/he enjoys social chit-chat; s/he knows how to tell if someone listening to him/her is getting bored; s/he is good at social chit-chat and s/he finds it difficult to work out people’s intentions." Alongside, various other indicators were rated as "performed excellently or acceptably" across the three different country groups.

The conclusion: "Cross-cultural overlap in the items most predictive of an autism diagnosis supports the general notion of universality in autistic traits whilst also highlighting that there can be cultural differences associated with certain autistic traits." I'd like to see more research done in this area. Quite a few years ago I posed the question 'Is autism the same all over the world?' (see here) and well, I don't have a good answer despite the Carruthers and other results. Obviously such a question needs also to be wrapped in the idea that the plural 'autisms' also exert an effect (see here) and take into account other factors such as comorbidity (if that is the right word). It should also perhaps appreciate that whilst the AQ is undoubtedly 'picking up' something, it might not just exclusively be autism or autistic traits (see here and see here)...

----------

[1] Carruthers S. et al. A cross-cultural study of autistic traits across India, Japan and the UK. Molecular Autism 2018; 9:52.

----------

Big data does... the extreme male brain theory of autism and the Empathizing–Systemizing theory

"Two long-standing psychological theories – the empathising-systemising theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain theory of autism – have been confirmed by our new study, the largest of its kind to date."

That was the opening sentence to a write-up (see here) of a recent research paper published by David Greenberg and colleagues [1] which sought to "test 10 predictions from the Empathizing–Systemizing (E-S) theory of sex differences and the Extreme Male Brain (EMB) theory of autism." The 'big data' words included in the title of this post refer to the collection of data from hundreds of thousands of people as part of a TV documentary that aired here in Blighty called 'Are you autistic?' whose data were included for study. This follows a similar format from some of the co-authors on the Greenberg paper on previous research occasions (see here).

Minus any charges of plagiarism, a few descriptors might be useful. First: "The first theory, known as the empathising-systemising theory of typical sex differences, posits that, on average, females will score higher on tests of empathy than males, and that, on average, males will score higher on tests of systemising than females." Second: "The second theory, known as the extreme male brain theory of autism, extends the empathising-systemising theory. It posits that autistic people will, on average, show a shift towards “masculinised” scores on measures of empathy and systemising." Researchers also talked about something called a 'd score': "the difference between each person’s score on the systemising and empathy tests" in their research, alongside mention of the words 'brain type'.

As part of the interactivity of that TV documentary, some 670,000 people "who indicated they were males or females" completed various measures: "the Autism Spectrum Quotient-10 (AQ-10)... the Empathy Quotient (EQ)..., Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R)..., and the Sensory Perception Quotient (SPQ)" via an on-line questionnaire portal. About 36,000 people who took part "indicated that they had been diagnosed with an “Autism Spectrum Condition”." Data from responses to the questionnaires were crunched pertinent to those 10 predictions from both theories (said predictions concerned sex differences based on responses to the questionnaires, those various 'brain types' and how responses might look with reference to the presentation of autistic traits). For good measure, researchers also describe carrying out an 'independent replication' of their findings on a separate cohort of adults ("14,354 participants (226 autistic individuals, and 14,119 controls)"). Although there were some minor differences from the larger main trial, to all intents and purposes the same procedures were employed "for calculating brain types and performing statistical analysis."

Results: well "all 10 predictions from the E-S and EMB theories" were confirmed. So for example, men taking part in the study "had a shift towards a high d score" suggestive of being more likely to be systemisers than empathisers, whilst "typical females had a shift towards a low d score" (i.e. more likely to empathetic than systemiser). The previous STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) findings [2] were also supported, in that: "STEM professionals on average scored significantly higher on the AQ" suggesting a link between the choice of STEM career and autistic traits. And for those reporting a diagnosis of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD): "autistic people, regardless of their sex, had a shift towards an even higher d score than typical males" (systemisers) but "were not more likely to work in STEM occupations, compared with controls."

There is a lot to take in from the Greenberg research and related commentary. The study has a number of things going for it insofar as the huge participant size and the use of an independent replication set to confirm findings. These factors should not be underestimated. The limitations? Well, self-report is still one of them, and the fact that at least one of the questionnaires used is probably picking up a lot more than just 'autistic traits' (see here). I'm also inclined to point out once again that the *correlation* between autistic traits and STEM career choice did not seemingly extend to those with autism being "more likely to work in STEM occupations, compared with controls." Going back to that 'what is being tested' issue, the AQ for example, might also be picking up something linked to "loneliness, social anxiety, depression, and anxiety" [3] or even something approaching the schizophrenia spectrum (see here) or personality disorder (see here). Indeed, one might have to entertain the idea that the definition 'autistic traits' may not tell the whole story in this study.

I have to admit to being still a little sceptical of big psychological theories such as the EMB or the E-S theory of sex differences. The reason? Whilst attractive in their compartmentalising nature, real life is often far from being so clear-cut and linear. The fact also that an important part of the evidence behind such theories remains a little 'fluffy' (see here for example) cannot be readily brushed under the scientific carpet. As for the use of the term 'brain types', well, I can see what the authors were getting at, but I'm not convinced such terminology is particularly useful. 'Brain types' kinda sits in the same category as 'neurotypical' (see here). I was also drawn to the fact that the authors have to explicitly say that their results don't mean that "autistic people lack empathy" and that "autistic people are not hyper-male in general." It kinda tells you how some of the history behind these theories shows that they have not exactly been received with open arms by many.

But even with all that, the Greenberg results cannot be just discounted, and more research on this topic is indicated.

----------

[1] Greenberg DM. et al. Testing the Empathizing-Systemizing theory of sex differences and the Extreme Male Brain theory of autism in half a million people. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 12. pii: 201811032.

[2] Ruzich E. et al. Sex and STEM Occupation Predict Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) Scores in Half a Million People. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 21;10(10):e0141229.

[3] Reed P. et al. Loneliness and Social Anxiety Mediate the Relationship between Autism Quotient and Quality of Life in University Students. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2016; 28: 723-733.

----------

Autistic traits assessed between 5 and 8 years old are 'primarily stable'

The findings reported by Hideyuki Haraguchi and colleagues [1] (open-access available here) provide the [brief] blogging fodder today and their conclusion that: "total and two subdomain-related autistic trait scores remained primarily stable in males and females" in the general population. Further that "assessing autistic traits before school entrance may aid in predicting later autistic traits as well as other co-occurring social and emotional problems."

Autistic traits were measured "by a mother-reported quantitative measure, the Social Responsiveness Scale, at age 5 and 8 years." The Social Responsiveness Scale or SRS has some good history with autism in mind both from a research and clinical perspective. In this case the Japanese version of the SRS was used, and data from total scores and "Social Communication and Interaction (SCI)" and "restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRBs)" domains also reported on in approaching 170 "Japanese community-based children."

Results: "We found that although autistic traits assessed by the SRS decreased slightly from age 5 to 8, the extent of this change did not reach statistical significance in this sample, indicating that autistic traits are primarily stable during this transition period at the group level."

This is an important finding. Whilst one has to be careful of any sweeping generalisations that for example, the expression of autistic traits by individual children or smaller subgroups might not be as stable as you think (see here and see here), the results do have implications for various areas. Not least those areas connected to the idea that autistic traits might have some subsequent important 'influence' on later psychopathology (or indeed, a subsequent diagnosis of autism). I say this in several important contexts covering the presence of depression and anxiety (see here) and also in relation to other 'overlapping' spectrums (see here and see here) and what this *could* mean for some potentially life-threatening risks (see here and see here).

The next stage of such research? Look beyond the late childhood years and into adulthood with autistic traits in mind.


----------

[1] Haraguchi H. et al. Stability of Autistic Traits from 5 to 8 Years of Age Among Children in the General Population. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018 Oct 5.

----------

Pervasive refusal syndrome and autism: autistic traits 'speeding up the recovery process'?

Before reading the case report paper by Emily Bond & Rosalind Oliphant [1], I have to admit that I knew next to nothing about the label known as pervasive refusal syndrome (PRS). PRS, a condition manifesting as 'refusal to eat, weight loss, social withdrawal and school refusal', is not currently recognised in any of the major diagnostic manuals (DSM, ICD) but does seem to have a following in certain circles [2].

Bond & Oliphant detail a case report of a 9-year old boy who came to clinical attention "due to concerns regarding minimal dietary intake." He had previously been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as well as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) following a trend these days (see here). He was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act as a consequence of "his resistance of treatment in the community" and also him "lacking Gillick competence." The authors detail his clinical journey, and how, with the right support and accommodations, he was eventually discharged from hospital care with the expectation for him to "make a full recovery to his premorbid functioning with support in the community."

Among the various issues raised in the Bond/Oliphant paper, one of the most striking points made by the authors was in the sentence: "It is possible that the ASD [autism spectrum disorder] symptoms such as literal thinking and concrete processing have actually aided in speeding up the recovery process." The idea that certain autistic traits might actually have had a positive benefit to getting someone through treatment for PRS...

I'm slightly careful here not to go off on the 'autism is a superpower' tangent that some people have previously spoken about (particularly on social media). For this young man, autism for him included communication issues ("His sole method of communication was typing on an iPad to his mother")  and various other traits (e.g. "struggling with understanding abstract questions, complex reasoning, and problem solving skills") which probably didn't impart any superpower for him. He did have an interest in superheros and dressing up in costumes however...

Authors mention how his recovery from PRS - he was discharged after 4 months - was significantly quicker than is typically expected (around 12 months "from previous literature"). They noted that: "The clinical team working with our case quickly found that he responded very well to rules, boundaries, and clear consequences of behaviour." This is perhaps even more notable in the context of his autism-ADHD diagnostic combination.

It did get me wondering whether further research might be revealing into how autism or specific autistic traits might positively impact on other treatment/management scenarios. I'm specifically thinking about more psychologically-inclined interventions, for example, dealing with something like anxiety (see here) where talking therapy is something that is being particularly pushed forward. Whether or not I agree that such therapy is going to be all that useful in the longer-term if for example, one considers that anxiety might be intricately related to some core functions in relation to autism (see here) is irrelevant. Whether certain autistic traits might be a critical variable in intervention success however requires much further study...

----------

[1] Bond EC. & Oliphant RYK. Pervasive Refusal Syndrome in Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 7;2018:5049818.

[2] Nunn KP. et al. Pervasive refusal syndrome (PRS) 21 years on: a re-conceptualisation and a renaming. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Mar;23(3):163-72.

----------

Internet addiction and suicidal behaviours meta-analysed

"This meta-analysis provides evidence that internet addiction is associated with increased suicidality even after adjusting for potential confounding variables including depression."

That was the research bottom line reported on by Yu-Shian Cheng and colleagues [1] following their meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed research literature looking at 'internet addiction' ("internet addiction OR internet gaming disorder OR internet use disorder OR pathological internet use OR compulsive internet use OR problematic internet use") and suicidality.

Researchers, with some experience of meta-analysis it has to be said (see here and see here), trawled through the pertinent literature and settled on the analysis of some 25 studies, including over a quarter of a million participants, that looked at internet addiction and suicidal ideation, planning, and attempts. Boiling the data down, they observed some important *associations* that even held when important variables linked to suicidal behaviours - depression for example - were adjusted for. Children it seems, were also more 'vulnerable' to the link between internet addiction and suicidality. The authors caution that cause-and-effect were not proven from their analysis of the collected data, bearing in mind "the evidence was derived mostly from cross-sectional studies" but call for further investigations in this area.

This is an important area of research. As per some of the previous studies conducted on internet overuse and suicidality [2], there are some important further investigations to be undertaken on for example, the various types of online activity that might increase the risk of suicidality: "online gaming, chatting, watching movies, shopping, and gambling were associated with an increased risk of suicidal attempt." This in the context that social media use in particular, is under the spotlight when it comes to various different health issues (see here). Alongside gambling disorder, so it looks like gaming disorder is set to enter the diagnostic texts too (see here), where 'lack of control' and causing "significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning" are key features. And minus any sweeping generalisations, 'control' *could* actually be a key element to consider when it comes to suicidal behaviours in certain circumstances.

Bearing in mind that this blog is predominantly concerned with autism research, I couldn't help but think about how the Cheng findings *might* relate to [some] autism. How for example, a diagnosis of autism also seems to elevate the risk of suicidality (see here) and how issues like depression are not uncommon in the context of autism (see here). I'm also minded to mention how compulsive internet use *might* show some important connections to the presentation of autistic traits [2] and how videogame use, in particular (see here), might have both positives and negatives in the context of autism [3].

By saying all that, I don't want to make any sweeping generalisations; the label of autism has had enough of those down the years. I don't also want to demonise the wonderful resource that is the internet, particularly when pastimes like gaming and social media use can be a good 'social' outlet for many people on the autism spectrum and beyond when used in moderation. Certainly the internet, through things like social media, provides an important voice and potentially quite a lot more to those whose voices might previously not have been heard...

But perhaps when it comes to the next stage of any research plan looking at internet overuse / addiction and suicidal behaviours it might be worth considering whether some of the features of autism or other, related labels [4] (see here) *might* also moderate any relationship. Whether there are some relevant lessons to be learned that *might* reduce the very worrying statistics on suicide and autism, and whether activities other than those done on online, could perhaps be seen as 'protective factors' when it comes to suicide risk (see here for example)?

Bear all that in mind by all means. But remember also that the paths that take someone to such suicidal behaviours are often numerous and individual. Internet overuse is probably only a small part of an often bigger and more complicated picture.

And in case anyone needs to talk or text, there's always someone who will listen (see here).

----------

[1] Cheng YS. et al. Internet Addiction and Its Relationship With Suicidal Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis of Multinational Observational Studies. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 5;79(4). pii: 17r11761.

[2] Lin IH. et al. The association between suicidality and Internet addiction and activities in Taiwanese adolescents. Compr Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;55(3):504-10.

[3] Mazurek MO. & Wenstrup C. Television, video game and social media use among children with ASD and typically developing siblings. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013 Jun;43(6):1258-71.

[4] Wang B. et al. The association between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and internet addiction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:260.

----------

Autistic traits carrying a 'cognitive cost' into old age?

I don't think anyone should be too alarmed at the findings reported by Gavin Stewart and colleagues [1]. But their observation that "autism traits as measured by the BAPQ [Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire] may confer additional risk of cognitive decline in aging" represents something that requires quite a bit of further investigation.

Some twenty 'older' adults who were questioned and deemed to have met criteria for the broader autism phenotype (BAP) were tested on skills related to executive function alongside episodic memory. Their results were compared with twenty 'older' adults who did not reach criteria for the BAP. Authors reported that: "Despite no differences in age, sex ratio, educational history or IQ, the BAP group demonstrated poorer performance on measures of executive function and episodic memory compared to the COA [control older adults] group." They interpret this in the context of that 'additional risk of cognitive decline in aging'.

The numbers of participants in the Stewart study were low and imply that one has to be quite careful about making any sweeping generalisations as a result. Bear also in mind that the BAP does not necessarily equal autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a function of it describing sub-threshold autistic traits (sub-threshold for a diagnosis). Traits, I might add, that are seemingly not just potentially representative of autism (see here for one example).

But set within a 'gap' in the research base looking at autism in older adults (see here), there is a scheme of work to follow. If for example, the Stewart 'trend' does overlap with the experiences of older adults on the autism spectrum in terms of 'cognitive decline', there is a whole barrage of potentially important implications to consider. More so when one considers that the autism prevalence data continues to head in only one direction (see here) and what this means for societal financial and resource planning.

Just before I go, one more detail was revealed in the Stewart paper: "Older adults who met the BAP criteria also reported higher levels of depression and anxiety." Continuing a theme on this blog that various over-represented issues/diagnoses in relation to autism might not be best described as just being 'comorbid' (see here and see here and see here), I believe that this finding adds further weight to the notion that autistic traits (clinical and sub-clinical) might have some important 'direct' relationships with other psychopathology. Not necessarily a welcome opinion in some quarters, but something that also requires a lot more investigation.

----------

[1] Stewart GR. et al. Aging with elevated autistic traits: Cognitive functioning among older adults with the broad autism phenotype. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2018; 54: 27-36.

----------