Slashdot Mirror
Autism Diagnosed With a Fifteen Minute Brain Scan
kkleiner writes "A new technique developed at King's College London uses a fifteen minute MRI scan to diagnose autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The scan is used to analyze the structure of grey matter in the brain, and tests have shown that it can identify individuals already diagnosed with autism with 90% accuracy. The research could change the way that autism is diagnosed – including screening children for the disorder at a young age."
Counting the number of first posts you get on slashdot
What are the operators of these machines called technically? Shamans?
Say you scan 50,000 a year, you'll get 5000 false positives. That means each year you'll have 5000 children who'll have to go through humiliating therapy and have their education severely hampered for no good reason! Of those 50,000, you'd expect only 500 to actually have autism.
Even if you used this as a basis for further testing, You're still putting 10 families through the stress of comprehensive testing for autism for no reason for every 1 family whose child actually has the condition.
> the numbers without the disease who test positive = 1,980 of the 9,900 without the disease
> Of the 2,070 with a positive test, only 90 will have the disease which is roughly 4.5%
So. 2070 will have this brain feature identified by the test (positive result). 90 of these will meet diagnostic criteria for autism.
Headline: "Autism Diagnosed With a Fifteen Minute Brain Scan" = totally inaccurate.
I think i'm coming down with something..
its actually much higher than that. What you're quoting is that 1 in 10 people with autism and given a false negative. Its actually much worse. Out of 10,000 children, 1980 would be found positive, out of which only 90 would have the disease. So only about 5% of people who tested postive would actually be autistic. It says this in TFA.
So it only has a 4.5% true positive rate. Great.
With Autism being so prevalent in humans you do have to wonder if it is really a disease or mistake, or perhaps either a previous evolutionary step or our next evolutionary step. While people who suffer at the extreme ends of the autistic spectrum would have difficulty maintaining a society, some of the more moderate autistic individuals are leaders in engineering, technology, and science. I do worry that when you diagnose someone with autism there is this natural "I'm broken" feeling along with it, and everyone treats you like you're disabled and thus useless. So I cannot say if being able to identify autism more often is a good or bad thing.
It is interesting, but unsurprising, that they found that ADHD and autism had no link thus far. Based on the symptoms I expect we'll find that if ADHD exists at all that it will be localised around control, while autism is localised around right/left brain communication.
I can only see this as a good thing, I'm on a compsci course and as you'd expect it seems like a good third of the people there claim to have aspergers, most of those seem fairly typical and reasonably socially functional. I'd be *highly* interested to see what this test reveals about them. This isn't to say I don't believe in the condition, I know plenty who have it and exhibit obvious major behavioural patterns and have actual issues with such things, I for one just suspect it's *way* over diagnosed, hell a number of psychiatrists have called me "aspie" after 5 minutes of talking to me, I certainly don't buy it. I just hope this sort of screening will help people who actually need help get the care they need and de-clog the system of hypochondriac nerds who want to feel special.
The main article is statistically inaccurate. The scan is in reality only 5% reliable if I remember rightly. It is only 90% effective when it comes to real positives, but the prevalence of false positives is so high as to remove any efficacy.
It'd be nice if someone out there would focus on prognosis and treatment of ASD.
Usually ASD is already "almost" easy to diagnose by other means. While treatment is not at all.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
The article doesn't show the false positive rate on people that have been diagnosed NOT to suffer from autism...
I hope it doesn't say 90% of them are autism sufferers...
This is quite old, they have been able to test for ADHD/Bipolar/Autistic traits for a long time via MRI now.
I'm starting to get sick of hearing 'hopeful' cures, why don't you tell us about it when it is implemented in all Mental Health facilities FIRST.
The more fashionable autisms, like Asperger's?
Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
you are the biggest failure in the world. congratulations for sucking so bad, it's truly an accomplishment. bitch.
The research could change the way that autism is diagnosed - including screening children for the disorder at a young age.
The thing about primary screening tests is that they have to give false positives, due to high sensitivity and lower specificity. It's ok if the test tells you you have HIV when actually you don't. It's NOT ok if it doesn't tell you you have it when you do. The other thing about primary screening tests is that they have to be cheap. This test is far from cheap and in fact consumes limited resources. In some countries there are waiting lists for MRIs.
Perhaps this test could be used as a secondary screen, if specificity can be proven to be high enough, to screen those doubtful or borderline cases so that they can be correctly diagnosed.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
With our without counting "kkleiner writes"?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Is it autism really or rather led poisoning from the many vaccines that infants are subjected too? Don't quote me but 50 years ago in the us there was 1 in 10000 diagnosed with autism while now there's 1 in 33. If I'm right evolution is not to blame here but rather pharmacy greed. I mean there are calculations that the level of led a child is subjected to is more then a 400 pound man can safely process. And psychiatry is inaccurate to say the least if not another capitalist bastard child. You don't see to many Iraquis begging for Prozac though they have plenty of stress in their daily lives.
Which is probably why you use such a test as secondary diagnostic or even only as confirmation test. You don't run such test on the population of children, you only run it on children which are already suspected to have autism. In other word, this is not a scanning test.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Therapy's not humiliating. Hell, OT's kinda fun.
Real humiliation is when you're growing up and all the interactions with your peers blow up in your face due to your mind-blindless and inability to read body language or understand personal space, and your classmates ostracize you because they think you're weird, and you don't know what's going wrong. And since there's nothing you know of (because your'e undiagnosed) that differentiates you from your peers or explains why this is happening, you conclude you're getting ostracized because you're some doofy, idiotic, bad person. That, my friend, is real humiliation.
The article specifically mentioned aspergers for a valid reason, it is of course more difficult to see the outward signs of Aspergers in comparison to the more immediate and obvious signs of someone with low functioning autism.
It still suprises me how little understanding many people have of the fact that ASD covers a wide spectrum of abilities.
Whilst the results may not yet be accurate the idea of any such test which may help speed up the process of diagnosis is very much welcomed by anyone who is affected.
Take the situation in the UK as an example:
The process of diagnosis is currently very drawn out here as many healthcare professionals are involved and a huge amoutn of back and forth and interviews / examinations. It doesn't help that they give financial assistance to those with ASD as this makes the local authorities even less likely to give a diagnosis until they have tested all possibilities.
We have been going through this process with our son for the last 18 months and it is likely going to be another few months yet before we have a conclusion. We are thankfully nearly at the end of process though for those starting out I feel a great deal of empathy. To be honest our son could have done with more support two years ago, instead he has had to wait and has been placed in situations which could / should have been avoided if he was able to be diagnosed more swiftly.
From everything I have read on the matter it appears that the intention of this scan is not to replace any specific part of the diagnosis however it may at the very least fast track some for more rapid consideration those with clear indications in the scans. This must surely be a good thing.
As long as it also does not result in those falsely identified as not having the condition going without the support they need (ASD or not) then it can only be a good thing.
A.Parent
Let me first say that this is great news - if it turns out to be true however following the addage of most published research is false. It's worth keeping in mind that this has 20 controls, 20 ASD and 19 ADHD - according to the article they could distinguish the ASD diagnoses from the controls and the ADHD but considering that according to the DSM IV autism can have close to 100 unique presentations. I wonder how much this actually demonstrates.
"A new technique developed at King’s College London" ...is not a new technique at all. It is an application of an old, in fact the oldest, analysis technique for structural brain MR imaging....
"uses a fifteen minute MRI scan"... a very common, standard MR brain scan, followed by many hours of counting the voxels (volumetric pixels) in the area of interest. Followed by many more hours of the same, to estimate the reliability using inter-rater testing, necessary due to variations in size, shape, density, etc. of the region examined, between individuals.
Ten years ago applying the technique to corpus collosum imaging rather than the usual grey matter was new. Given that the 'technique' consists of lots of counting, it gets old quickly.
It's becoming more obvious that false statements can be made without risking accusations of ethics violation as long as the publication appears in a non-peer reviewed 'journal'.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Of course the wiki gives a similar example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Example_1:_Drug_testing
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
...movement.
If this test does mature into a (much) more reliable diagnostic tool, and can be made accurate enough to be useful, early diagnosis will significantly increase the number of children diagnosed with autism.
I'm sure the anti-vaccine, anti-science contingent will completely misunderstand the issue and blame the increase in autism diagnoses on the H1N1 vaccine, or whatever tomorrow's boogeyman is.
Doesn't something like 90% of the population fall somewhere on the autistic spectrum as it is? ;o
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Not really -- the problem is with the base rate fallacy. Suppose that there's a test that will tell you whether or not you have a disease with 99% accuracy: if you have it, you're 99% likely to test positive; if you don't have it, you're 99% likely to test negative.
Now, you get a test and it's positive. What's your probability of having the disease?
The answer is, "There's not enough information to answer the question." The missing piece of information is the "base rate".
Suppose that 50% of the people have the disease. Then in testing 1 million people, 500K will have the disease, of which 495K will come back positive (true positive), and 5K the test will come back negative (false negatives). 500K will not have the disease, of which 495k will come back negative (true negative), and 5k will come back positive (false positive). If the test came back positive, you're either a true positive or a false positive. Since there are 500K positives, and 495K of those are true positives, your chances of having the disease are 99%.
Suppose instead that 1% of people have the disease. Then in testing 1 million people, 990K will not have the disease, and 10K will have it. Of the 990K, 980K will come back negative (true negative) and 10K will come back positive (false positive). Of the 10K, 9900 will come back positive (true positive), and 100 will come back negative (false negative). There are 19,900 who tested positive, of which only 9900 (less than half) actually have the disease. So if you tested positive, your chances are about 50%.
So even if the test itself is very accurate (and I think 99% is pretty accurate), if the base rate is low enough (and in autism I believe it's still less than 1%), a positive reading may not be conclusive. You'd have to correlate it with other symptoms to make sure.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
read "Why autism can't be diagnosed with brain scans" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/aug/12/autism-brain-scan-statistics
Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
with your lack of comprehension.
Lets make it simple for you:
Test is devised to find out if MRI can detect autism.
It can detect people with autism with a 90% rate.*
Refinement is needed.
Your complaint is like going to 1912 and telling Goddard since his first rocket liquid fueled rocket won't go to the moon, his research is useless.
It's a good discovery that has promise.
*this does NOT mean 9 out of 10. IT means that the closer you get to edge cases the more likely it will fail.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are 440 characters in the text of the summary plus the introduction you speak of. Disregarding ends-of-lines or the actual URL embedded in the text.
Definitely.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
If you run the test multiple time your accuracy improves. Run it a second time and 17% percent of the time a positive test means the person actually has autism. Run it a third and it's 48%. Run it a fourth and its 81% percent.
So now the test is 81% accurate and can diagnosis 66% of people with autism. It took 1 hour per person.
However I don't really know that doctors could stack these tests. And I may have made embarrassing mathematical errors.
I'll be genuinely impressed - and eager to put myself under the magnet - if it can reliably distinguish between autism spectrum disorders and highly sensitive people (http://www.hsperson.com/pages/2Aug09.htm).
You actually think you have it, you're talking about it in an extrovert manner. That's the kicker. Real Aspis don't think they have it. They never come to that conclusion independently. They don't advertise it. They don't go about with this "look at me I'm Rain Man" and indulging in some very public Asperger's chic fantasy.
My diagnosis? You're just fucking weird. Man up.
This is total irresponsible science media reporting. This should be downranked into oblivion.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
People wonder why the cost of health care is spiralling out of control. MRI scans are a very EXPENSIVE way to diagnose anything. I fear the additional cost (via increased demand) of scans will only put greater pressure on health care budgeting. I can already see greedy marketroids wringing their hands in anticipation of the forthcoming lucre.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
I don't care if you have the cure, because I have special abilities that I want to keep developing!
*throws poo at OP*
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/autism-information.shtml ... Quick info: To lower risk of autism, Dr. Cannell recommends at least 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day for pregnant women. For autistic children, Dr. Cannell recommends at least 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 per every 25 pounds of body weight per day, with frequent [blood test] monitoring of 25(OH)D, targeting 100 ng/mL (250 nmol/L)."
"It is plausible that vitamin D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset and progression of autism. Though only still a theory, first put forth by Vitamin D Council Executive Director Dr. John Cannell, the idea of a major role for vitamin D in the etiology of autism is gaining momentum. From Harvard scientists to Swedish research teams, more and more scientists are examining the possible link between vitamin D deficiency and autism in the hopes that Cannell's theory will hold up against scientific scrutiny -- what would herald the discovery of a simple, natural solution to an increasingly-common, and very tragic, condition.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
There's highly functional and poorly functional people all over the world. Some of them probably have atypically nuerological wiring and others dont.
It fascinates me that these are considered disorders when there are so many famous, successful and exceptionally brilliant people that apparently have 'a problem' yet are also on top of the pack... I've always felt that ASD, Bi-polar and other such 'dissorders' are merely reflective of a different state of being.
Never mind that though... you can just imagine what things could have been like if we had this screening ability in schools years ago
Teacher/Nurse: "Well Master Gates, Master Einstein we're sorry to advise that you have ASD. Clearly this places you in a position of disadvantage so you'll never be able to get anywhere or do anything in life, but we CAN give you some lollies!"
Gates/Einstein [Priority Override. New objective]: "Nom nom nom nom"
1: source and qualification.
2: Are there positive or negative effects of being diagnosed and put on the trial and error treatment process until something is found to help you in the long term, or treatment stopped.
and retorically.
Would you rather be diagnosed with something, given treatment which may well help you. Or, not be diagnosed with something, when you may have something similar but not quite the it, and the med's help anyway but you won't be allowed them because your condition doesn't have a little box for you to fit in.
But Dr I have cancer, can't you at least give me radiotherapy.
I'm sorry sir, but that has only been proven to work in cancer of the bowel and spleen, you have cancer of the elbow so we'll just have to wait and see if it develops to the bowel or spleen then we may be able to treat you, if it's the correct colour.
Incidentally I have ASD and ADHD (with as greater degree of confidence as I have about anything), I can easily spot similar behaviours etc.. in other people and then go on to tell them pretty much exactly how they are thinking (I'll tell different people different things, and also ask them the other things just to check they don't hit that as well to build a better picture) and how they have been all their lives. I'd put the rates of people that I've done this to as high as 25% in adults (restricted social group[high self medication rates]).
Due to a lack of diagnosis criteria in adults and the complexities of diagnosis as well as the failure of the NHS to follow NICE guidelines and possible prejudice against certain activities (against their membership of the GMC, indoctrination via government propaganda)[some forms of self medication for instance]. I was diagnosed with a serious mental health condition, put on the serious mental health register, and given hard core treatment [chemical lobotomy], that was the opposite of what I should have been on, which they continued for years even though they said it wasn't working.
Given the serious ramifications of not being diagnosed correctly with ADHD/ADD for instance (high rates of crime, stock market crashes and that kind of thing), along with the even more serious problems associated with the classical alternative diagnosis [child hood schizophrenia is the old diagnosis]. What do you think they should do?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.