News The latest developments in autism research.
Profiles Portraits of scientists who are making a mark on autism research.
Toolbox Emerging tools and techniques that may advance autism research.
Spotted A roundup of autism papers and media mentions you may have missed.
Opinion Conversations on the science of autism research.
Viewpoint Expert opinions on trends and controversies in autism research.
Columnists Dispatches from experts on various facets of autism.
Crosstalk Debates and conversations about timely topics in autism.
Reviews Exploring the intersection of autism and the arts.
Q&A Conversations with experts about noteworthy topics in autism.
Deep Dive In-depth analysis of important topics in autism.
Special Reports Curated collections of articles on special topics in autism.
Webinars Presentations by leading experts on their latest research.
Opinion

Early autism diagnoses stay stable in ‘baby sibs’

by  /  5 June 2015

CandyBox Images/Shutterstock.com

Researchers have long known that the younger siblings of children with autism are about 20 times more likely than average to be diagnosed with the disorder. Because of the children’s family history, doctors often follow these so-called ‘baby sibs’ in infancy for subtle signs of autism, sometimes diagnosing them before age 3. This age has long been thought to be the youngest at which children can reliably be diagnosed with the disorder. But it has remained unclear whether these early diagnoses hold up with time.

A study published 29 April in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry suggests that the vast majority of baby sibs who are identified as having autism between 18 and 24 months retain their diagnoses at age 3. (In the general population, children are typically diagnosed at age 4.)

The findings jibe with nearly two decades of evidence indicating that early autism diagnoses are remarkably stable for children in the general population. But they also reveal that standard tests do not detect autism in some baby sib toddlers.

The researchers followed 418 baby sibs from 18 to 36 months of age. Licensed clinicians evaluated the children for autism-like behaviors and examined their language, motor and cognitive skills at 18, 24 and 36 months. At each visit, the clinicians were able to diagnose some of the children.

Of the 44 of the children diagnosed with autism at 18 months, 41 retained their diagnoses at age 3, and of the 79 children diagnosed at 24 months, 65 still had their diagnoses a year later. The reliability at 24 months is slightly lower but may reflect a tendency of clinicians to be more conservative in assigning diagnoses at 18 months, the researchers say.

Of the 17 baby sibs who turned out not to have autism, some received other diagnoses, such as speech and language delays. Others may have improved after receiving behavioral interventions, but the study did not assess this possibility.

Although an early diagnosis for a baby sib is liable to stick, being cleared of autism at a young age is less likely to be informative. The study shows that early evaluations miss a large proportion of baby sibs who have autism.

Of the 110 children who were ultimately diagnosed with autism, the clinicians missed 63 percent at 18 months, and 41 percent at 24 months. The researchers say autism symptoms in these children may either be slow to emerge or masked by normal language and cognitive abilities.

In any case, the findings suggest that baby sibs should be screened for autism repeatedly up to age 3.

The work has important research implications. In many studies, scientists sort baby sibs into groups based on whether they have autism at 24 months. This practice may wrongly classify a large proportion of the children as not having autism when they do in fact have it. That error could skew the differences uncovered in studies of baby sibs.

The study also reveals that baby sibs diagnosed with autism by 24 months have more severe symptoms and poorer language, motor and cognitive skills than those who are diagnosed at age 3. Given these differences, scientists and clinicians should not assume that observations about baby sibs who receive early diagnoses apply to other children with the disorder.


TAGS:   autism, baby sibs, diagnosis
  • RA Jensen

    Another study that raises red flags. The baby sibs program is highly selective. Michael Rutter has opined that behavioral and molecular geneticists consider the environment as a nuisance to be ignored. The baby sibs, the Simons simplex collection, the Baron-Cohen amniocentesis study and the Autism Simplex Collection (TASK) has unique exclusion criteria for selecting their volunteer families. Exclusionary criteria include genetic syndromes. low birth weight, exposure, prenatal exposure to drugs (eg Valproate acid), neurological signs,unfavorable birth difficulties and neo natal complications , severe intellectual difficulties, seizures to name a few. Any data from these highly selective studies can only apply to the sub group recruited and cannot be extrapolated beyond the group selected.

    • Matt Carey

      is there value in giving us alleged quotes that if true would demonstrate that Michael Rutter is wrong?

      It takes zero time to find behavioral and genetics researchers who also work in environmental risk factor work.

      You claim that “severe intellectual difficulties” are an exclusion criterion. Yet when I check this paper
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627310008305

      I find that verbal IQ’s range from as low as 5. How much lower does one need to meet your criterion for “severe”?

      Baseless complaints about the studies does no one any good.

  • E Cook

    I am probably missing something obvious above, but what is the source of this article – paper, IMFAR presentation – please provide citation

  • E Cook

    Thanks for the citation !

  • RA Jensen

    There has been only one study that was a population based study.All children (about 1.5 million) born in Denmark between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2004, were identified and followed up to December 31, 2010.

    Recurrence risk for ASD was 6.9% much lower than the baby sibs clinical volunteer families recruited through clinical and social media referrals with its well documented bias of ascertainment.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23959427

    • Matt Carey

      All children were identified is true.

      The assumption that autism was indentified in all autistic children is almost certainly false.

      How many of the children in the baby sibs study would have been missed if they weren’t under the scrutiny involved in the study?

close

Log in to your Spectrum Wiki account

Email Address:

Password:


close

Request your Spectrum Wiki account

Spectrum Wiki is a community of researchers affiliated with an academic or research institutions. To be considered for participation, please fill out this form and a member of our team will respond to your request.

Name:

Email Address:

Title and Lab:

Area of Expertise:

Comments: