Brain Scan Can Detect Autism In Infants

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brain Scan Can Detect Autism In Infants

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:16PM from the early-check dept.

kkleiner writes "A new study shows that brain scans can detect autism in children as young as 6 months old. Researchers at University of North Carolina's Institute for Developmental Disabilities imaged the brains of 92 children who were at high risk for autism. Scans were performed when the children were 6 months, 1-year, and 2-years old. At 2 years, the age when children are typically diagnosed, 30 percent of the children were found to have autism. The researchers then compared the brain images of the autistic children with the others. They saw differences in the brain's white matter, the axon-laden pathways that transmit electrical signals to distant parts of the brain. Of the 15 pathways analyzed, 12 were significantly different between autistic and non-autistic children."

166 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:19 · Score: -1, Troll

It needs to be detected in utero, so that the fetus can be aborted.

-Rick Santorum

(aka Rick with the silent 'P')
1. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  Readers can also detect autism in first posts.
2. Re:Not early enough. by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-02-23 13:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I used to think of eugenics as being cruel, but I've started to sympathize with first poster after having lived next door to a family with an autistic kid. The kid spent the whole day staring silently into a corner and spent all night in very audible screaming fits. Their burden became their unwilling neighbors' burden.
  
  My friend's family was also at the mercy of their extremely well-built and violent retard son. Aside from almost drowning his brother in the backyard pool(a story I mentioned here as AC), he flashed everybody at his brother's birthday party, shot up his whole house with a BB gun, he tried to rape his own mom after getting into the liquor cabinet. They were an otherwise-perfect, well-off family.
  
  Sanctity of life, indeed. "If the fetus is a Downs, grip it out by the crown" is my motto.
3. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:19 · Score: -1
  
  Holy shit I haven't lol'd this hard on /. in years. Kudos to your +2
4. Re:Not early enough. by Sulphur · 2012-02-23 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  It needs to be detected in utero, so that the fetus can be aborted.
  -Rick Santorum
  (aka Rick with the silent 'P')
  He will be Rick the Lionhearted if elected.
5. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Sure as hell I'd abort the fetus if they knew it was autistic.
  Not only are they not productive members of society, they cost the taxpayers millions in entitlements.
  There are already too many humans we don't need more broken ones.
6. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I am extremely disturbed by the lack of compassion in your sociopathic comments and the fact that others voted you up. I am not here start a flame war, but I know a child that is autistic but extremely high functioning. He(six) learned the solar system, computers, and the how the body works at intricate level. He has more knowledge then most adults.
7. Re:Not early enough. by petman · 2012-02-23 13:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why don't you go and put a bullet through that kid's head right now? Since you're advocating killing him before he was born, surely him having gone through a few years of life is not worse off than not having gone through life at all?
  
  --
  Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
8. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 14:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You know one child that is autistic but extremely high-functioning. First, is he really hardcore autistic, or just some book-smart kid with poor social skills who was diagnosed with an autistic-spectrum disorder to make excuses for genetic weakness and/or poor parenting? Did mommy spend all her time socializing, working, and trying to lose the baby weight; or did she actually try to bond with the baby? Did she breast-feed the baby? Did the parents care more about their careers and just delegate caretaking duties to some cold, uncaring maid?
  Now, disregard the cause. Alternately, was the family affluent enough to be able to throw a gang of high-priced specialists and tools at the child? Did they have the luxury of being able to dedicate more time to the child than other working families? So the child knows about stuff - but what are his idiosyncracies? Can s/he function and relate to their peers? Do they break out in screaming fits? Does the child show signs of hebephrenia or catatonia at times? Food for thought.
  -- Ethanol-fueled
9. Re:Not early enough. by rickla · 2012-02-23 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  He's a sociopath alright. He doesn't get what responsibility is. You get a severely retarded child, he's your life's work, that's the way it is. To think you have a choice isn't human.
10. Re:Not early enough. by budgenator · 2012-02-23 14:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Lack of empathy that your displaying is also a frequent symptom of autism.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
11. Re:Not early enough. by victorhooi · 2012-02-23 15:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  heya,
  You do realise that's the sort of rhetoric that only brainwashed religious nutjobs spout, right?
  I'm definitely not 100% comfortable with advocating open season for abortions, and I think it's a tragedy whenever it happen, but to declare moral equivalence between abortions and shooting a child is a logical fallacy that only an idiot or a self-deluded fool could commit.
  Look, I don't know if you're ever actually worked with autistic kids. I don't mean movie-style Rain Man style, but an actual real flesh and blood kid, complete with temper tantrums, screaming and violent outbursts. If it was your kid, I'm sure you'd still love them, but I can see why some parents would crack.
  I used to help teach special needs kids, and on the bad days, even those couple hours a week could be seriously draining.
  And also, many of these have a genetic factor - so it's just like hereditary diabetes - the incident rate today is going up, simply because people with the genes are living longer, and having more kids. Diabetes - sure, you can argue it's not a huge deal if you pass it onto all your kids, but other things, like say Huttingtons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington's_disease), if I knew I was a carrier, I'd think twice before having my own biological children (there are alternatives to abortion, believe it or not).
  Cheers,
  Victor
12. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 15:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's not even lack of empathy, it's lack of competence. As someone with Asperger's, and an IQ of 191 - I can safely say the smartest people I have met in my life have had Asperger's, a high functioning form of Autism. If you manage to weed out Autism you will also be weeding out some of the most intelligent minds that would otherwise come. Yes social skills are a bit less, from the perspective of others at least - to those of us with Asperger's (and this is a practically universal view amongst us) socialization is simply a lower form of thought that detracts from greater things. By all means though, I look forward to the day that freaks like like the OP will have produced eugenically manufactured retards being devoured by my Morlock progeny.
13. Re:Not early enough. by quenda · 2012-02-23 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  Sanctity of life, indeed. "If the fetus is a Downs, grip it out by the crown" is my motto.
  I know a little about disabled kids, and Downs is a piece of cake compared to severe autism.
  Downs kids are demanding, but typically cute and lovable, compared to the family-wrecking nightmare that is autism.
  Still, we did amnio, and if it was a choice of Downs, or terminate and try again for a chromosomal normal child, it's no contest.
14. Re:Not early enough. by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-02-23 16:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Horseshit detector clicking rapidly. You may gain credibility, however, by describing to us your socioeconomic background and (approximate) age.
  
  We're not talking about Aspergers, the highest-functioning and probably most abused disability diagnosis aside of ADD (shit, I feel ADD right now. Can I get some Adderall and have an extra 4 hours to take that test? It's the new affirmative action! )
  
  We're discussing pure autism, and for somebody who claims to have a remarkably high IQ, you're pretty ignorant and have no personality or style. You reek of a pseudo-intellectual who can use 4-syllable words. But you're not a special snowflake, and your disability and/or parents' money will get you into that school of choice.
  
  -- Ethanol-fueled
15. Re:Not early enough. by drsmack1 · 2012-02-23 16:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >> Yes social skills are a bit less, from the perspective of others at least - to those of us with Asperger's
  >> (and this is a practically universal view amongst us) socialization is simply a lower form of thought that detracts from greater things.
  I imagine other examples of lower thought that detracts from greater things:
  Eye contact
  Bathing
  Navigation
  Hand eye coordination
  Moderation
  Empathy
  And as for "and this is a practically universal view amongst us"
  NEWS FLASH: Group of people decide that what makes them different is actually an advantage. Comments from muscle men and goatze at 11.
  
  --
  Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
16. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 16:36 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Actually I dropped out of highschool, joined the Army managing networks, worked in Redmond writing business intelligence software and invented an energy storage solution about 2.5x the energy density of the best batteries on the market (in super-capacitor form so a limiting circuit is required for battery-like use) for which I am currently setting up a production line. If you missed the whole fucking point of my previous response - "personality" and "style" are chimp-like forms of thought - might as well greet people with an ear-to-ear grin and shoo off anyone offending you by reaching in your pants and lobbing a handful of shit at them - there's a reason you probably couldn't speak to a person with autism if your life depended upon it.
  On the other hand, I do agree with the part that this is all about mis-diagnosis. This article is a great example of the view on Autism, there is no mention of the distinctions in brain matter(relative to Autistic vs Non-Autistic, only a description of white-matter without a ratio), what specific regions the differences are in or anything else that might indicate the stance meant to be generated by the author of this article is that Autism is simply something to be treated early that it might never arise rather than having a focus on utilizing the powerful effects. Yes, I would agree that the extreme forms of Autism are bad on the grounds that too much introversion results in a lack of value to society, a lack of ability to learn from society and a generally ineffectual life - however there are things we can do that other's cannot in the same degree - I can read about a paragraph long differential equation and see the answer without thinking about it, in an imperceptibly quick time-frame. I don't know about you, but as someone who's greatest pleasure is scientific research - I couldn't imagine wanting to waste my time with what the rest of you do, it seems like a waste of time and an evolutionary step backwards (and ironically I'm not even calling for the sterilization of the retards - no wonder we aren't on Mars yet, eh?).
17. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  irrespective of your supposed credentials your comment was spot on, especially the Morlock progeny part, lmao.
18. Re:Not early enough. by A+Nun+Must+Cow+Herd · 2012-02-23 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  HFA or Aspergers is really very different than the severe autism you are describing - the autistic spectrum is vast. And there are all kinds of problems people have - if you draw the line at autism (including HFA, which can be mild enough to go undetected), what else will be enough? Blindness? Risk of anger issues? A high likelihood of anxiety disorder?
  
  And if six months is fine, how old is too old? Or does age not matter?
  
  A society can be judged by how it takes care of its weak and vulnerable.
19. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  The point is there are a large number of capable people with HFA and Aspergers (although an IQ of 191 isn't really that amazing). Your claim that it's mainly due to misdiagnosis, and effectively that an insignificant number of those people are autistic, should probably have been caught by that horseshit detector you carry around... I'm guessing you're self-trained to ignore it when it's you talking though ;-)
20. Re:Not early enough. by dunkelfalke · 2012-02-23 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Sheldon Cooper posts on slashdot?
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
21. Re:Not early enough. by dutchwhizzman · 2012-02-23 20:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Autism, asperger and high IQ are not known to be related. There are at least as people with IQs just as high that do not show any autistic characteristics as there are with them. At least, there is no scientific study that proves absolute correlation. The only reason people seem to think they are, is because Savants are so fascinating to observe.
  
  --
  I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
22. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  And there's never been a "normal" kid born who isn't violent, sociopathic, idiotic, or goes on to become a total waste of life leeching off the system their entire life.
  At the same time, plenty of people with forms of autism, or retardation due to Down or some other developmental disability who don't become perfectly productive members of society. Sure, there are some who are less-functional and won't ever be able to live on their own. But I see people with Down and such working (albeit often low-paying) jobs and paying their rent and taxes like everyone else. And hell, they're far *nicer* and more dedicated than the slacker University students they work with.
  Part of being pro-choice is accepting a woman's choice to bring a child with a (potential) disability into the world as much as it is respecting her right to terminate.
23. Re:Not early enough. by Plammox · 2012-02-23 21:06 · Score: 2
  
  Dear AC: The refrigerator mother theory as a cause for autism, was put to the grave decades ago. Google for twin experiments and autism if you need to. Most of all, it's just a convenient explanation for uninformed people to explain this retraction they see in the children.
  
  Genetic weaknesses, however, is a much more likely cause.
24. Re:Not early enough. by Prune · 2012-02-23 21:13 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Pray tell, how do we reconcile your alleged intelligence with your inability to write a post that's not marred by multiple grammatical errors?
  
  --
  "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
25. Re:Not early enough. by Prune · 2012-02-23 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  I am stunned that troglodyte moderators took a poorly punctuated post such as his at face value and marked you the troll instead. Someone with an IQ of 191 would surely know that the first comma should be a semicolon, the first dash a comma, and so on. Even deeper ignorance is betrayed by referring to socialization as a "form of thought".
  
  --
  "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
26. Re:Not early enough. by Prune · 2012-02-23 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  For all your alleged intelligence, you seem to be unable to vary your style significantly enough to prevent those of us with mere average intelligence to be able to determine that you're samefagging and have replied multiple times to the OP while trying to imply that most of these replies are from different individuals. Even your grammatical errors are consistent across your posts. I see nothing "high functioning" here, just a sad troll.
  
  --
  "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
27. Re:Not early enough. by petman · 2012-02-23 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  You do realise that's the sort of rhetoric that only brainwashed religious nutjobs spout, right?
  I do realise that's the sort of argument that an anti-abortion advocate would make that would incite pro-abortionists to resort to calling names because they can't find a good counter-argument to it.
  
  --
  Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
28. Re:Not early enough. by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-23 22:37 · Score: 2
  
  The tendency to obcess does have it's advantages in some fields, explaining why those with aspergers or aspergers-like symptoms tend to be overrepresented at the very top. They don't make great mathematitions because they are smarter - it's because they can display such intense focus. While the other students are partying, the aspergers studies. While the others are drinking, he studies. While they are watching movies with friends, visiting families, taking vacations... he studies. When they are dating, married, raising children, he studies. Work, sleep, work, sleep, work, sleep... the type of personality that will focus tightly on one narrow field at the expense of everything else.
29. Re:Not early enough. by bartoku · 2012-02-23 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Are you originally from Texas and do you have a roommate named Leonard?
30. Re:Not early enough. by bartoku · 2012-02-23 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  It is you Sheldon!
31. Re:Not early enough. by _merlin · 2012-02-23 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  Look, I don't know if you're ever actually worked with autistic kids. I don't mean movie-style Rain Man style, but an actual real flesh and blood kid
  Yes I have. My wife's much younger cousin will never speak. She has the ability to imitate sounds, but she has no concept of language. We're probably going to be responsible for her when her parents can't look after her any more. It's going to be a big responsibility, but I'm not bitter. It's my lot in life - I just have to deal with it.
32. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  Responsibility is aborting when you know it's going to come out only to live a life of misery. You are the one who is sub-human.
33. Re:Not early enough. by kyrio · 2012-02-23 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're saying is that you're a nutjob?
34. Re:Not early enough. by Ihmhi · 2012-02-23 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  NEVER go full retard.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
35. Re:Not early enough. by Antique+Geekmeister · 2012-02-24 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Aspberger's does not create consistent brilliance in all fields of endeavor, nor does it prevent RSI from interfering with casual typing. And an Aspberger's patient who is not well educated due to having their autism misdiagnosed may not have had the excellent education in English grammar available to some of us. In fact, early diagnosis of both learning problems and of genius can help children be exposed to, and supported in the material they can handle.
  And there _is_ treatment for autism in children, especially compared to misdiagnosing their distraction and difficulty with emotional interactions as ADD and giving them excess Ritalin, like one child I know. The switch after his re-diagnosis was profound. He's happier, his parents can handle his issues better, and he's progressing much faster at school. It can be difficult with a child to say how much is the treatment, and how much is just a separate stage of development, but his parents and school are convinced it's the treatment and different school programs for him.
36. Re:Not early enough. by Antique+Geekmeister · 2012-02-24 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the killing of deformed infants has numerous historical precedents. So does the killing of the children of slaves, and of the children of native populations by invaders. Even the killing of children too small to work in families facing starvation is not unheard of, historically: look up some of the tragic stories of the Irish potato famine in the 1740's.
  So there are certainly logical _comparisons_, if not equivalence, between reasons given to justify abortion and the killing of children. It's not an absolute moral position to hold infant's lives to be sacred: it's never been universally applied, even by Christian nations.
37. Re:Not early enough. by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-24 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  I'm definitely not 100% comfortable with advocating open season for abortions, and I think it's a tragedy whenever it happen, but to declare moral equivalence between abortions and shooting a child is a logical fallacy that only an idiot or a self-deluded fool could commit.
  Or Peter Singer, highly regarded ethics professor at Princeton, who favors both abortion on demand and the right of parents to kill their children up to some unspecified age.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
38. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  I thought the Mensa test only went up to 167 or something.
  Plus IQ is meaningless. You can't define someone's entire intelligence in a single number. It is far too complex to reduce down to such a simple concept.
39. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  And as for "and this is a practically universal view amongst us"
  NEWS FLASH: Group of people decide that what makes them different is actually an advantage. Comments from muscle men and goatze at 11.
  NEWS FLASH: if you could understand a paragraph sized block of differential equations at a glance without having to think about it over a perceptibly long duration of time, you wouldn't trade it for the social skills and charisma to make everyone on Earth perceive you as their best friend and most trusted ally either - and the rest of you don't even have that.
40. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  He's autistic, not OCD.
  Dumbass tard.
41. Re:Not early enough. by Tibixe · 2012-02-24 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  If you do understand differential equations at a glance, please have a look at the Navier-Stokes equations. The Millennium Prize might compensate you for your not even "perceptively long" time.
42. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  I teach an undergrad-level psychology lecture with some 150 students at a tech/science school that has pretty high entrance requirements. In every class I get two or so Autistic Spectrum Disorder kids, most of them with quite noticeable impairments. And that's only the ones that come to me and talk. (Which many like to do, as they think I can help in any way - which I probably can't. I specialize in a very different area of cognitive science.) The ASD kids are very interesting to talk to, and given their geek-like obsessions, many of them do OK academically. Wikipedia lists prevalence rates for Asperger's at 0.03 to 4.84 per 1,000. This seems to suggest that we get to see particularly many of them at our school. This does not, of course, mean they ASD people are more intelligent on average (I'd never see the rest of them, of course). While it seems pretty firmly established in the literature that ASD patients are not, on average, more intelligent (probably the opposite), I would hypothesize that the shape of the distribution of fluid intelligence among the ASD population is different: flatter, with more less-able, and more above-average intelligent people. The blog entry from late 2010 [1] suggests that the jury is out on the question. Fein (2011) [2] has a more differentiated discussion. [1] http://www.autisable.com/736822986/autism-and-intelligence-the-facts/ [2] D. Fein, The Neuropsychology of Autism, Oxford University Press, 2011.
43. Re:Not early enough. by drsmack1 · 2012-02-24 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  You got me there. Because we all know that in the history of mankind, this skill has been the key pathway to individual happiness. No wait, it's the opposite of this. How many great minds in man's history have lived lives of misery and died alone and penniless? Just because you could name maybe a couple does not mean that constitutes a higher plane of being.
  The goal of life (if you do not believe in an afterlife) is to be happy. The skill you mentioned is not in any way comparable to the ability to sift through a room of strangers and instantly know just by looking at them what their relationships are to one another, how they view you and which ones you would more easily associate with.
  And if you have lived your life without social skills and the ability to be actually happy, how could you know which one would be more prized by the individual? If you go by lifetime outcomes and quality of life of the *individual* - it's not even close.
  
  --
  Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
44. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  You do realise that's the sort of rhetoric that only brainwashed religious nutjobs spout, right?
  I do realise that's the sort of argument that an anti-abortion advocate would make that would incite pro-abortionists to resort to calling names because they can't find a good counter-argument to it.
  Find a good counter-argument? You're kidding, right?
  You're ok with subjecting someone to a potentially life-threatening ordeal with various tortuous complications over a roughly 40 week period? Do recall it's their body.
  Note: for those that don't want to be pregnant, it's roughly the equivalent of force-feeding them to gain 30+ pounds, injecting them with hormones, and generally abusing their bodies, followed by a significant bloodletting at the end. And that only approximates some of the more easily replicated effects. This doesn't include the calcium and other mineral depletion effects, nor duplicates the parasitic growth occurring internally. The latter could be somewhat approximately by adding a benign tumor in the abdomen that gains 5-18 pounds over 9 months and then remove it as well. In fact, this process could also be applied to males, and I'm guessing you are one. (Yes, an embryo is parasitic until it can support itself. No matter what nature's purpose is, it's the only way to define a foreign body supporting itself off of another living organism.)
  Not a single name-calling incident in that entire rebuttal of your non-argument.
45. Re:Not early enough. by HeckRuler · 2012-02-24 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Dear Plammox, the point of AC's post is that the child might not have autism, but is just socially stunted with a parent fishing for an excuse. Why would the kid be socially stunted? Hey, maybe his mother sucks at being a mother.
46. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Greeks were one group that explicitly was recorded practicing infanticide, especially regarding deformities, but also for reasons as simple as whoops, there's already 6 kids, can't feed another one.
  Jewish tradition is not to name a child nor give gifts related to the child until after a successful birth."Successful birth" meaning the child was born alive and stayed alive at least through the first three days. Chinese do not name a child until after the first month, during a naming celebration. Infanticide appears to be an accepted practice, even recently, where especially girl children were left to die after the "One Child" policy.
  Essentially, the policies against infanticide didn't really come into being until relatively recently, as in decades, and certainly is still far from universally accepted. Considering these attitudes on infanticide, talking about abortion seems irrelevant.
47. Re:Not early enough. by budgenator · 2012-02-24 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  We're not talking about Aspergers, the highest-functioning and probably most abused disability diagnosis aside of ADD (shit, I feel ADD right now. Can I get some Adderall and have an extra 4 hours to take that test? It's the new affirmative action! )
  -- Ethanol-fueled
  
  From the actual paper "At 24 months, 28 infants met criteria for ASDs and 64 infants did not.", so yes we are talking about Asperger's, PDD-NOS and HFA because thats what ASD means, Autistic Spectrum Disorders, the whole ball of wax .
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
48. Re:Not early enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  My friend's family was also at the mercy of their extremely well-built and violent retard son. Aside from almost drowning his brother in the backyard pool(a story I mentioned here as AC), he flashed everybody at his brother's birthday party, shot up his whole house with a BB gun, he tried to rape his own mom after getting into the liquor cabinet. They were an otherwise-perfect, well-off family.
  Misery? Sounds like a party animal.
49. Re:Not early enough. by tehcyder · 2012-02-24 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Autism, asperger and high IQ are not known to be related. There are at least as people with IQs just as high that do not show any autistic characteristics as there are with them. At least, there is no scientific study that proves absolute correlation. The only reason people seem to think they are, is because Savants are so fascinating to observe.
  The term is idiots savants for a reason. The ones with the amazing maths/drawing/memory skills are largely one dimensional human beings, and close to moronic in most aspects of their personality.
  
  Whereas the largely well off middle class social inadequates who pay to get themselves labelled as having Aspergers are simply not the bright, fascinating snowflakes their parents hoped for.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
50. Re:Not early enough. by Plammox · 2012-02-24 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, knee-jerk reaction from my side. We're a bit sensitive on this topic.
51. Re:Not early enough. by surd1618 · 2012-02-26 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  As someone with Asperger's who does not give a f*** what my supposed 'intelligence quotient' is (as if some scalar could explain a HUMAN BEING!), I feel the need to say here that I think 'social intelligence' is every bit as broad and deep a use of mental faculties, if not more, than solving physics problems or writing code or what have you. I have learned this in a slow and arduous way, and although I am sure of it, I would say that it can't be proven. But for my revelatory journey, "How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart" by David Foster Wallace, and Blink and Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell come to mind.
  
  That being said, I do agree that autistic people can be extremely gifted. Autism in its milder forms seems to me to be the extreme of an adaptive specialization for interpreting the world symbolically, and some of the most famed scientists and mathematicians may have used such differences in their basic mental faculties.
  Trying to rank humans seems pretty trivializing to me.
52. Re:Not early enough. by KingBenny · 2012-02-26 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  i rarely dare speak on this subject but i have had the opinion for a very long time that in a lot of cases , whatever the 'condition' it's classified as a condition because it is out of the boundaries of the normal. With it comes a stigma : the 'mental' condition. Isn't it normal that highly intelligent people (normal, there it is again), like yourself in this case are bound to perceive the world differently than the middle of the bell curve would? Cant it be deducted that this would lead to a behaviour pattern and definitely thought patterns that don't match those of the middle of the bell curve. I've read about so many different states of mind and they are all just 'autism' ? Has anyone actually defined autism to be something solid yet? Or is it like borderline (something completely different i know, i dont mean any offense whatsoever if you might think so) where people get diagnosed with the 'condition' because they don't fit into any other single category? Brainscience and pyschology are really in need of lots of funding because so far i think it's only starting to scratch the surface
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
53. Re:Not early enough. by Jmc23 · 2012-02-26 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's very easy to have a high IQ and not know anything about grammar and syntax. One could argue that syntax is for those of lesser intelligence that need arbitrary symbols to tell them how to interpret things. This would be even more true for someone on the autism spectrum. My IQ was only 162 but for the first 2 decades of my life I never even knew what a comma was for, nor could i tell time, or tell you the names of the months in order.
  It's probably why so few people understand Lisp, it just isn't for that average sheeple who like to be constrained and tortured by things like Java.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
But I thought... by mvdw · 2012-02-23 12:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Immunisation caused autism. Science FTW!
1. Re:But I thought... by Master+Moose · 2012-02-23 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Beat me to it!
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
2. Re:But I thought... by MightyYar · 2012-02-23 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  These infants all had their entire 2-year regimen early :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:But I thought... by linatux · 2012-02-23 12:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Brain scans caused autism in 30% of the children scanned!
4. Re:But I thought... by masternerdguy · 2012-02-23 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Don't get your kids vaccines. In the coming resurgance of polio and measles I get the last laugh.
  
  --
  To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
5. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Little known fact: the superluminal neutrinos emitted by those vaccines can travel closed-timelike curves and cause autism before they are given.
6. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Until someone with polio gets the flu and coughs on you.
7. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Aren't you wandering a little too far away from Digg? This is where the smart kids hang out.
8. Re:But I thought... by budgenator · 2012-02-23 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  You can't cough in an iron lung
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
9. Re:But I thought... by acslewis · 2012-02-25 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Immunisation caused autism. Science FTW!
  Starting on the day of birth, happy parents in hospitals everywhere give their newborn their first shot. For Hepatitis B. By age of six months, scared parents everywhere (or intelligent depending on how you are brainwashed- and we all are) give their children 6 vaccines. By age 2, they receive 27. The study proves nothing- except maybe 30% of the helpless kids who get shoved into the machine that sounds like a firing squad might get medical exemptions. http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/kidstuff/newscheduler_le/schedule.asp I received 7 of these things ("shots") in my entire life and I don't know anyone who got any of the diseases I was vaccinated for. My point is not that vaccines might be effective (though I have yet to see a study that was not sponsored by money from people and organisations with huge conflicts of interest)- it's that the amount of vaccines in such intense combinations at such early ages- with adjuvants that are known neurotoxins- must raise questions in your head. Please do not blindly accept paid-for "scientific proof" as actual proof. If you hold off until the immune system is able to utilize these agents effectively they might work and fewer would be "required." Do a titre at the end of getting 1 shot per disease. If sufficient antibodies exist, as theory goes, no more shots would be necessary... Science FTW!
This is one of those things... by ackthpt · 2012-02-23 12:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's like a smoke detector which is telling you your house is already on fire, but can do nothing about putting it out or preventing it from happening.
Might be useful in some way for consulting with parents, but a knife-edge decision there, to decide whether to tell people their child might develop Autism, with the possibility you culd be wrong. While it is interesting information the practice side of how to use it raises some questions.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:This is one of those things... by LehiNephi · 2012-02-23 12:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There are a couple questions I have about the study:
  
  1) How close was the correlation between the odd brain scans and incidence of autism? what was the error rate?
  2) Can the brain scan be used to predict autism, rather than as a 20/20 hindsight study?
  3) If the test does reliably predict autism, how practical is it to put it into use? I can't imagine it would make much sense to do it to every 6-month-old--the cost would be prohibitive, particularly since it's a relatively small percentage of the population which are autistic. Would this become something that is only used for children who have a high risk of developing autism?
  
  /parent of an autistic son
  
  --
  Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
2. Re:This is one of those things... by MightyYar · 2012-02-23 12:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's like a smoke detector which is telling you your house is already on fire, but can do nothing about putting it out or preventing it from happening.
  On the other hand, you can get a 2-year jump-start on locking the kid in the attic.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Early intervention with autism probably makes a huge difference. I would agree with your assessment if it didn't though.
4. Re:This is one of those things... by ianbean · 2012-02-23 12:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  1) The original research article is open access so you can take a look for yourself. The differences were statistically significant between the two groups (ASD-positive versus -negative) but there isn't enough data to estimate a sensitivity or specificity for using this as a test. 2) It could be a diagnostic test. In theory that would allow potential treatments to begin before the behavioral aspects of ASD manifest (which is around 2yo correct?)
5. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Studying the brain development of infants, who later are diagnosed as having autism, provides important information as to the root causes of autistic. And understanding the root cause is important in creating effective treatments.
6. Re:This is one of those things... by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · 2012-02-23 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that earlier diagnosis might not have much value beyond consultation, and in fact these brain scans might do more harm than good along that line. But the research might yield clues into what causes autism and, although probably too optimistic, maybe even help lead us to a method of preventing the disorder.
7. Re:This is one of those things... by jamesh · 2012-02-23 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Early intervention with autism probably makes a huge difference. I would agree with your assessment if it didn't though.
  If they can positively identify a brain layout that correlates to autism, and then try various early intervention techniques and measure the results, in the future we may be able to say "early intervention definitely makes a huge difference".
8. Re:This is one of those things... by Fned · 2012-02-23 12:55 · Score: 2
  
  There are a couple questions I have about the study:
  
  Those sound less like questions about this study and more like questions about the next study that they haven't done yet...
9. Re:This is one of those things... by tomhath · 2012-02-23 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. There's a reasonable chance that the development of autism could be avoided or minimized if we understand what causes it. Many genetic diseases can be treated (e.g. MSUD, catch it in time and the child can live a fairly normal life).
10. Re:This is one of those things... by icebike · 2012-02-23 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  3) If the test does reliably predict autism, how practical is it to put it into use? I can't imagine it would make much sense to do it to every 6-month-old--the cost would be prohibitive, particularly since it's a relatively small percentage of the population which are autistic. Would this become something that is only used for children who have a high risk of developing autism?
  
  Unless or Until there is a early intervention/prevention treatment, finding these children early seems expensive and not that helpful.
  AutismSpeaks is big on therapy but statistical evaluation of success seems pretty spotty at best, since no two kids are the same, and none of these seem appropriate for autism at 6 months to 1-year, which scans might detect.
  Since normal detection typically occurs at 2 years, therapy has at best 12 to 18 months additional time to "work" if scans are performed. But all the therapy in use today was developed for 2 years and up.
  The best hope the scans seem to provide is more data for those studying Autism. Not likely to help the patient much.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
11. Re:This is one of those things... by Tropaios · 2012-02-23 13:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Phenylketonuria and celiacs are both very common with autism. By carefully controlling the diet at a younger age many behaviors might be curbed or avoided altogether. With this as with all medical conditions, the earlier you know the better.
12. Re:This is one of those things... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-02-23 13:39 · Score: 2
  
  That presumes there is effective treatment for autism in infants, which there is not. The best you can hope for is to warn the parents what they may be facing.
13. Re:This is one of those things... by rrohbeck · 2012-02-23 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's being narrowed down to genetics so hopefully they can identify a gene combination sooner or later. Then potential parents could have a test.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
14. Re:This is one of those things... by slew · 2012-02-23 14:07 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  FWIW, this seems to be just the latest in research that has been coming out in the last few years that seem to add to the evidence that autism onset is really early or preterm.
  For instance, that this paper that came out in 2005 attempted to more systematically document the early signs of autism by using a longitudinal study which comparing a set of high risk infants (who had an older sibling diagnosed w/ some ASD), with a control set at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months.
  Of course today, autism is defined in terms of behavior. The key is the origin or eitology of autism. Is this odd brain scan an indicator of the origin, or is it something else and this is merely correlated. Nobody knows.
  However, we do seem to have strong indication of certain specific chromosomal problems that can lead to autistic behavior: FragileX, Rett Syndrome, and Tuberous Sclerosis. Fragile X and Rett's are X chromosome related. This is suspiciously related to the observation that incidence of ASD are higher in boys and boys only have 1 "X" chromosome. TS is not X related, but can cause calcium deposits to develop in the brain or in some cases tuber-like growths in the brain (as special case, since tuber-like growths occur all over the body w/ this condition).
  Because of the accumulated research, many people speculate that there are actually many pathways to autistic behaviour. You might even think of autism as a symptom of many diseases and conditions (like a cough is a symptom of many diseases), so many experts are not optimistic that will be a "cure" for autism, but perhaps in the future there will be a way in some situations to blunt the symptoms early enough to avoid many of the problems in many of the common cases.
  Reality is often much more complicated that the headlines.
15. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's like a smoke detector which is telling you your house is already on fire, but can do nothing about putting it out or preventing it from happening.
  Yep, exactly like a smoke detector telling you your house is on fire.
  You can not have one and die in a fire.
  Or, you can have one, hear early enough to do something about it...
  For an autistic child, getting a jump sooner rather than later can make a significant difference.
16. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 14:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Our son was diagnosed with autism at just under 2 years old and put into early intervention preschool right when he turned 3. Between that and the things we've done at home, we now have a 9 year old he is doing well in a regular ed class with an aide and who will probably be able to graduate high school and get a job and hopefully live on his own some day.
  If we would have known at 6 months old we could have gotten started earlier and he would be miles ahead of where he is now. The things that kids learn between 6 mos and 4 years about social skills are just so important, I can't even imagine how big of a deal it would have been for our son to know at 6 months instead of 3 years.
17. Re:This is one of those things... by JoeMerchant · 2012-02-23 17:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In 2003, they would not even attempt a diagnosis of Autism before age 3, even though all the research was pointing toward early intervention with socialization therapy as highly effective at mitigating the worst of the debilitating effects of ASD.
  Getting this diagnosis at 6 months can kick off a course of ABA and socialization focus at a time when it matters most to the child's future.
  I just spoke with a surgeon this morning, married to another surgeon, who have a 16 year old son with straight As and no concept of what a friend is - if they had noticed earlier and done something about it, he might (according to the literature) have more of a social life at this point. Maybe he's happy the way he is, but at some point, social withdrawal has a negative impact on the ability to pro-create, and even though children have a negative correlation to happiness, it is sad to not be able to have them if you really want to.
18. Re:This is one of those things... by tgibbs · 2012-02-23 17:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, nobody knows whether there is effective treatment for autism in infants. Until autism can be reliably diagnosed in infants, there is no way to test whether any kind of early intervention will improve outcome.
19. Re:This is one of those things... by snicho99 · 2012-02-23 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Unless or Until there is a early intervention/prevention treatment, finding these children early seems expensive and not that helpful.
  Of course there is a chicken and egg type problem there. How do you design effective treatments without reliable diagnosis...?
  
  --
  -Steve http://www.stevennicholson.com
20. Re:This is one of those things... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-24 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there is an effective, although very limited, treatment for autism. It has been discovered that large doses of B vitamin (I forget which one) reduces the symptoms of autism significantly. It would be interesting to see what impact starting a B vitamin regimen on infants who show positive for autism via this scan has on their eventual behavior (and whether it impacts the way the scan comes out later).
  There were two hypothesis developed from the study that showed that a B vitamin regimen reduced symptoms in autistic children. The first was that the child received insufficient b vitamins while in the womb. The second was that it was autism was caused by neonatal B vitamin deficiency. This study suggests that the prenatal hypothesis is more likely. In both hypothesis, the possibility was presented that for some reason children who developed autism needed larger dosages of B vitamins to function properly.
  The combination of these two studies provide fertile acenues to further studies that may lead to finding a cure, or at least a prevention, for autism.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
21. Re:This is one of those things... by assertation · 2012-02-24 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  The earlier an autistic child starts therapy the better the chances are that s/he will do better. Better diagnostic techniques that let parents know about autism in their children sooner is valuable.
22. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  This is so not funny it hurts. You asshole.
23. Re:This is one of those things... by MightyYar · 2012-02-24 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, if I were a politician I'd have to apologize to the victims of attic-imprisonment.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
24. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  It's certainly valuable to show that autism does *not* stem from early-years environmental factors, in case there's any lingering doubt out there about that. This is clearly something in the brain's pre-natal development. As for the value in early diagnosis, I have to assume that the longer parents have to line up the support they need, the better. It is really a nightmare to watch your kids's every move for signs of something you don't want to see.
  Now, this was done on "high-risk" infants, I presume based on established risk factors like autism in older siblings and maternal age at birth (is that still considered a risk factor?). To extend this as a screening tool to the low-risk population, even as a costly boutique service, they've got to make sure the false positives are way down.
  But really I think the value is in correlating autism with specific brain structures, to better understand the condition.
25. Re:This is one of those things... by Slippery_Hank · 2012-02-24 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Earlier ABA therapy could potentially have great effects. Once a child is diagnosed currently, their social skills have already become impaired. The therapy must first undo the damage and then reteach skills. By getting started at 6 months instead of two-three years, you could work on maintaining and building the skills they already have (most do develop some social skills before regressing) without spending the time fixing things. Combine this with the fact that a childs brain is more susceptible to be shaped by behavioural therapy the younger they and I could really see this being a benefit. Behavioural therapy is expensive though, so there is probably quite a bit of work to be done on getting the false positive rates down in a predictive scenario.
26. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, nobody knows whether there is effective treatment for autism in infants. Until autism can be reliably diagnosed in infants, there is no way to test whether any kind of early intervention will improve outcome.
  Not strictly true, depending on your definition of "infant." ABA therapy can be very effective when started early. "Early" in this case might mean 18 months or so, which I agree is when the child is older than an infant. But there's a lot of work required by the parents etc. to get the therapy started, and if the kid gets the diagnosis at, say, 24 months, it might take another 6 months to get the therapy going. By that point a large chunk of the early-intervention window has passed.
  There's a lot of benefit to getting a preliminary diagnosis as early as possible so that the parents and other caregivers can hit the ground running as soon as the child is old enough for therapy. I speak from personal experience as I knew my child was on the spectrum at 9 months, but couldn't get therapy started until almost 30 months.
27. Re:This is one of those things... by tobiah · 2012-02-24 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  2) Autism is a very poorly defined disease, and so probably encompasses many. I seriously doubt a region-specific white-matter analysis of an MRI image will prove useful in predicting it. Perhaps a subset of the patients have a white-matter cause of their disorder, but it would still be very hard to detect. The inspiration for this approach was the similar test done (usually with ultrasound) for Down's, which is a much more clearly defined disorder. But even with that test there are plenty of false positives and negatives. It's not the most useful test and I doubt it ever will be, brain structure varies a great deal between individuals, and doesn't tell us much about function.
  
  --
  "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
28. Re:This is one of those things... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  Citation?
29. Re:This is one of those things... by ToddInSF · 2012-02-25 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't funny if you give a crap about autistic kids.
  
  Early diagnosis is going to be a big deal, there's the potential here to treat and possibly even cure autism.
  
  There is also the potential to help kids that aren't even at risk for autism, as what's leaned about child development will be at least partially applicable.
30. Re:This is one of those things... by MightyYar · 2012-02-26 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, you can simultaneously care about things AND retain your dark sense of humor.
  Otherwise I agree with everything else in your comment.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Oh, I Call Shenanigans by Petersko · 2012-02-23 12:20 · Score: 0

Hep A vaccinations aren't given until after one year of age.
It's at least a clue to the cause by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the brain is showing abnormality at birth or close to it then we can at least rule out post-natal causes (e.g vaccines). Perhaps epidemiologists should start looking into diet deficiencies or exposure to toxins during pregnancy.
1. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by fiannaFailMan · 2012-02-23 12:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the brain is showing abnormality at birth or close to it then we can at least rule out post-natal causes (e.g vaccines).
  Well they already have been, but maybe this'll convince the Oprah/Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carey crowd.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
2. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by nedlohs · 2012-02-23 12:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not a chance, they aren't being rational to start with so evidence and facts are irrelevant.
3. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  If the brain is showing abnormality at birth or close to it then we can at least rule out post-natal causes (e.g vaccines).
  Well they already have been, but maybe this'll convince the Oprah/Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carey crowd.
  I don't think you can do anything to convince them. About all you can do is just ignore them enough until they cease to be as vocal about this topic and until they find some other cause célèbre to occupy their time.
4. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-23 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Ha, no. For that we must resort to pointed sticks, like with all blatantly illegitimate vested interests and their detritus.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
5. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by rrohbeck · 2012-02-23 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Those evil scientists surely faked their data because they were paid by the medial-industrial complex! Where is autismgate?
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
6. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  That does not discount the effect of the vaccines given to the mother on the fetus.
7. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  possibly. thats why you have to identify two separate groups with this same abnormality, administer vaccines to one group and no vaccines to the other,and see if autism becomes more prevelant in the group that receives that vaccines. thats the only way to be sure. until then both pro-and anti-vaccine camps have valid arguments.
8. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it does, because women don't get vaccines when they are pregnant, retard.
9. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Or we can now proceed with science? How about scan a bunch of kids and those that are at risk give half a rich EPA/DHA diet to for 18 months and half get placebo. Try other early interventions in a similar manner and look at what works. You could not vaccinate one group and vaccinate another to see if those are triggers that cause problems for existing conditions.
  Now that they can get info this early we may be able to get past the hysteria and do some real science on autism. We can only hope that they can improve it from 30% to a much higher number.
  Correlation does not mean causation.
10. Re:It's at least a clue to the cause by fiannaFailMan · 2012-02-27 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Already been done. Is the entire population of Denmark not a big enough sample size for you?
  The anti-vaccine crowd doesn't have a valid argument. It's all based on emotional hyperbole and has shit all to do with science.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
Talk about finding a solution to a non-problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:29 · Score: -1

There's absolutely no reason to scan babies that young for autism. You need to wait until 3 years or thereabouts so that they've been through the initial rounds of immunizations.
You might as well give the babies a pregnancy test. It is equally unnecessary.
Differences can be seen at six months looking back by Martin+Blank · 2012-02-23 12:32 · Score: 4, Informative

The study results do not detect autism (which most people will read as a diagnosis). When looking back over the scans, differences from normal development could be seen starting as early as six months, but this is retrospective after it was diagnosed at the common ages. This study may at least provide some clues on how autism develops even if it doesn't provide a means of diagnosing it earlier.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Irrelevent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:35 · Score: -1

Test the mothers BEFORE they get pregnant.
1. Re:Irrelevent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  HIV is already part of standard tests.
Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-23 12:37 · Score: 0, Troll

If I can recall correctly, brain scan does introduces radiation into the brain
What are they thinking?
Scanning the little brains of little babies will only do more harm than good to those babies
I do not object of performing brain scan on babies - but on those babies who may have cancer or other fatal illness in order to diagnose their condition
Autism may be serious, but at least, it's not a fatal sickness

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by JoshuaZ · 2012-02-23 12:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If I can recall correctly, brain scan does introduces radiation into the brain
  Depends on the type. PET scans do have some radiation. The study in question - http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=668180&RelatedWidgetArticles=true used diffusion tensor imaging which is a variant of MRI, which uses strong magnetic fields and does't produce any radiation. The technique is essentially harmless.
2. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by jamesh · 2012-02-23 12:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The technique is essentially harmless.
  Except that 30% of those scanned in the study now have autism... coincidence? ;)
3. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mean that the radiation produced is non-ionizing, not that no radiation is produced. An important distinction.
4. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Tanktalus · 2012-02-23 13:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The technique is essentially harmless.
  Except that 30% of those scanned in the study now have autism... coincidence? ;)
  I bet most of that 30% also were exposed to that super-dangerous Dihydrogen Monoxide, too. That's where I'd put my money. After all, some kids have autism without ever being scanned, and most of them were probably exposed to DHMO. Parents give that stuff to their kids like it was water, without ever realising how dangerous it is!
  I'd go on, but I have to go take my kids to their swimming class.
5. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  It's important in an academic sense, but not when trying to explain radiation to the average person. They don't realize just how many things give off some negligible, non-damaging form of radiation, so it's simpler to just explain as "no radiation".
6. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by MaskedSlacker · 2012-02-23 14:45 · Score: 2
  
  I hate you.
7. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-23 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  ... give off some negligible, ... of radiation ...
  
  That lies my original statement --- the radiation from brain scans - except perhaps for MRI --- is that they introduce enough radiation into the brain in order to be able to "read" the result
  The amount of radiation introduced in any brain scan is definitely not "negligible"
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
8. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by quenda · 2012-02-23 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  But even weak magnets have a biological effect. They must do - magnet therapy is a billion dollar industry.
  If a $2 ferro-magnet can cure cancer, the massive field of an MRI must be able to cause disease. This relationship is proven by the homeopathic principle.
9. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by blueg3 · 2012-02-23 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding? That's nothing. Technically-minded people on Slashdot have no sense of how much ionizing radiation they're exposed to from perfectly ordinary and unavoidable sources in the course of a day. Forget regular people understanding anything about non-ionizing radiation.
10. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  What planet do you live on?
11. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by tgibbs · 2012-02-23 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  No, diffusion tensor imaging is done with magnetism. No radiation is required and there is no risk of cancer or other fatal illness.
12. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  Well, kind of. At the technician workshop at the SCMR (society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging)this year there was a talk on MRI safety and the presenter made it clear that people do get hurt from MRI machines when safety precautions are not followed.
  The magnets in MRI scans are very very powerful and people have had metal projectiles flung at them because of this, for example one technician got a pair of scissors lodged in his skull (one hospital in copenhagen recently had a fork truck get stuck in their MRI machine :) ). Any magnetic metal parts in the body could cause large problems as well. The coils in them are also dangerous and can cause severe burns if placed too close to the skin.
13. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  I used to design electronics for neural electrodes to use on human inside MRI's.
  MRI's make ridiculous amounts of noise, possibly damaging to infant hearing, and they align and vibrate the water molecules in the tissue. So they deposit heat.
  So please don't say "it's not radiation, so it's automatically safe".
14. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by nadszyszkownik · 2012-02-23 23:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'm guessing Sarcasmia IV
15. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  > If I can recall correctly, brain scan does introduces radiation into the brain
  You recall incorrectly.
  The study in question, had you bothered to read the abstract, clearly states it is using "diffusion tensor imaging", which is a form of MRI.
  Come on, it took me less than 5 seconds of Google to figure this out, are you *that* lazy?
16. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by scubamage · 2012-02-24 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Shhh, you'll give Jenny McCarthy ideas that don't involve taking off her clothes.
17. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  /////////////NASCAR WHOOOSH
18. Re:Brain scan introduces radiation into the brain by im_thatoneguy · 2012-02-24 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well in all fairness there is:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
  
  Single or paired pulse TMS causes neurons in the neocortex under the site of stimulation to depolarize and discharge an action potential. If used in the primary motor cortex, it produces muscle activity referred to as a motor evoked potential (MEP) which can be recorded on electromyography. If used on the occipital cortex, 'phosphenes' (flashes of light) might be perceived by the subject. In most other areas of the cortex, the participant does not consciously experience any effect, but his or her behaviour may be slightly altered (e.g. slower reaction time on a cognitive task), or changes in brain activity may be detected using sensing equipment.
Re:Differences can be seen at six months looking b by Hatta · 2012-02-23 12:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly. Next they need to scan another group of babies at 6 months, identify the autistic type scans and see if that predicts autism 2 years out.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No validation cohort by neurogeneticist · 2012-02-23 12:52 · Score: 2

They didn't predict anything. They retrospectively reviewed scans and determined a "signature" that correlated with the outcome studied. Without an independent validation cohort, this is interesting but far short of definitive. There are concerns about overfitting with such an analysis technique.
1. Re:No validation cohort by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-23 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's a testable hypothesis! Remember, any news is good news in grant applications.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Autism is on the run by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:06 · Score: 1

Once autism can be detected in fetuses, they will be aborted routinely.
Count on it.
1. Re:Autism is on the run by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'd abort faster than you could bat an eyelash if I found out my child was going to develop autism.
2. Re:Autism is on the run by quenda · 2012-02-23 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Once autism can be detected in fetuses, they will be aborted routinely. Count on it.
  Thankyou Captain Obvious! You saved the day!
Fuck !a trollkore by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:14 · Score: -1

peop7e already; I'm Used to. ShIT ON
Progress! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:17 · Score: 0

I'm proud to say that I am related to the director of this institute! Amazing discovery and progress! Go Joe!
Re:Differences can be seen at six months looking b by sdguero · 2012-02-23 13:26 · Score: 1

True. But perhaps this will put some of the anti-vaccine blowhards to rest.
Not predictive by gr8_phk · 2012-02-23 13:56 · Score: 1

From TFA

At 2 years, the age when children are typically diagnosed, 30 percent of the children were found to have autism. The researchers then compared the brain images of the autistic children with the others. They saw differences in the brain's white matter...
They need to do another experiment. It's not right to look at the scans AFTER you know which ones have a problem. Otherwise you start to "see things" to support the conclusion. They don't really need to re-scan, they could just show all the scans to people who don't know the results and see how well they spot the ones with a problem. Then you can talk about predictive ability of the scans.
1. Re:Not predictive by LurkerXXX · 2012-02-23 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  It IS right to look at the scans AFTER you know which ones have a problem if your goal is to identify differences. An eventual later goal would be to prove that the differences are definitive and useful for diagnosis. That's not what these researchers were doing. RTFA. They don't claim that this IS diagnostic, but that their research results found differences that are interesting, and might lead down the road to predictive tests. They make no claim that it is a predictive test.
2. Re:Not predictive by metacell · 2012-02-23 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't checked if the study is double-blind, but if it isn't, it doesn't even prove the differences exist. It's very easy to see differences when you expect them to be there.
3. Re:Not predictive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  Where did the authors state they have proved the difference exists? They didn't. You didn't check the study at all, let alone to see if it was double-blind. They found something interesting in a small prospective study of 92 infants, only 28 of which met criteria for ASDs, suggesting a correlation might be there, and that rates further investigation.
4. Re:Not predictive by metacell · 2012-02-25 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I said.
amod up by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 13:56 · Score: -1

it a break, if to get involved in outreach are Niggers everywhere bad for *BSD. As and exciting; but many find it Nigger Association A productivity All along. *BSD product, BSD's Briiliant plan
Prenatal test by Compaqt · 2012-02-23 14:31 · Score: 2

Assuming autism is mostly genetic (which I don't claim), and assuming they can come up with a prenatal test for it (not this one), would it be moral to abort if a test showed positive for autism?

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Prenatal test by WhitePanther5000 · 2012-02-23 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  If we can find a way to speed up the process of human evolution and artificially select desirable characteristics (and/or prevent undesirable characteristics), I think it would be immoral to not do so. My biggest concern with this specific example, however, is whether we can discern between HFA / Asperger's and low functioning autism... and where that line is.
2. Re:Prenatal test by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly - it's a very wide spectrum. Lumping it all under one category and treating it all the same would only be done by people who have very limited experience with ASD. And deciding where to draw the line would be extremely difficult.
3. Re:Prenatal test by xero314 · 2012-02-23 21:16 · Score: 2
  
  What exactly are "desirable characteristics"? Desirable to who? We have entered a period of time where human interaction is going by the way side. Emotions are irrelevant on in the modern internet connected society. Could it be that the most "desirable characteristics" are lack of affect? The exact characteristics that define autism? If Autism truly is on the rise, and I'm not saying it is, then maybe Autism is the most desirable characteristics for human survival.
  In the near future we will have computer programs that can pass the turing test without failure, not because they are as complex as humans, but because humans will have become more analytical and predictable.
4. Re:Prenatal test by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  Selective breeding is not evolution.
5. Re:Prenatal test by Prune · 2012-02-23 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Of course.
  
  --
  "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
6. Re:Prenatal test by merxete · 2012-02-24 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  Desirable to whom? I define desirable as having the propensity to understand a simple grammatic rule such as using "whom" when it's the object of a preposition.
differences can be seen at six months looking back by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 14:36 · Score: 1

so the next step is do the study on another group of babies identified with the same pre-autism brain signature, administer NO vaccines, and see if the autism still develops.
People marry early by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2012-02-23 16:34 · Score: 1

because there are study that marrying and being pregnant late can increase the chance of autism in the child.
There are also there are study that people early marry have higher chance of divorce, bankruptcies, home foreclosure, and delinquent children due to not having the proper financial foundation to begin with.
I don't know much how autism is being treated here in America, but being acquainted with the eastern culture, tiger-mom tactics and oppressive military-style training are quite popular in combating autism in East and South-East Asian countries.

--
New Economic Perspectives
1. Re:People marry early by Plammox · 2012-02-23 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Temple Grandin (american) also advocates the discipline approach. And it makes sense, if no feedback is given to unwanted behaviour, how are the autistic kids else going to learn the social rules invisible to them? It must be applied with sensitivity, though.
Re:Not early enough by JoeMerchant · 2012-02-23 17:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Sure as hell I'd abort the fetus if they knew it was autistic.
Not only are they not productive members of society, they cost the taxpayers millions in entitlements.
There are already too many humans we don't need more broken ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_autistic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders
When my 2 year old was showing signs of ASD, we mentioned it to our pediatrician. She pointed out her window to the Johnson Space Center (Houston) and said "don't be too concerned, half the guys over there are autistic, too."
I've had 8 years to philosophize about it, and I still stand by my initial position that, if there were a magic cure that would make my son "normal," meaning just like the middle of the pack people I knew in High School, I wouldn't want it for him. There are already enough "normal" people in the world.
Re:Not early enough by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-02-23 17:37 · Score: 1

Yes, but I bet yout kid would give anything to be 'normal'. My son is high-functioning autistic and he knows he is different and it broke my heart when he was ten and just wished to have real friends.
Re:Not early enough by JoeMerchant · 2012-02-23 17:56 · Score: 1

The label "Autism" is about as descriptive of an individual as the label "Caucasian."
My sons (2, both diagnosed with Autism) are both well aware that they are different - neither of them has yet showed any desire to be normal, or to get normal people to like them.
The future is impossible to predict, we're just trying to equip them the best we can for the 40-ish years of life they're likely to have after we're gone.
Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 19:01 · Score: 0

Fuck you twice.
At risk of autism ? by Inanna-qui-baille · 2012-02-23 20:02 · Score: 1

How can you know that a child is at high risk for autism ?
1. Re:At risk of autism ? by Inanna-qui-baille · 2012-02-23 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind, the link is working now and it is explained in the article.
Dear Parent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 23:45 · Score: 0

We have discovered that our baby has a high probability of developing autism.
Please ensure you child takes this drug for the rest of its life to ensure that it does not develop autism.
Note that all drugs may cause side effects. There is a slight possibility that this drug may cause autism. Since this is outside our control, we cannot be held liable.
Joe Fixer, Drug Dealer^W Rep
Re:More...THEN. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-24 00:08 · Score: 0

"He has more knowledge THEN most adults."
And possibly better grammar than you, as well...
No correlation by pkbarbiedoll · 2012-02-24 08:40 · Score: 1

My IQ is in the normal to upper normal range (119) and I am diagnosed Aspergers. Quite convinced that had more been known about this neurological disorder in the 70s & 80s, I would have been DX'ed at a much earlier (and more helpful) age.
So no, there isn't a correlation between high IQ and Aspergers. We (aspies) are no more gifted than neurotypicals, though you may hear more about brilliant people on the autistic spectrum due to the phenomenon being seen as interesting or cool by society in general.
this is "insightful" Re:Not early enough. by si3n4 · 2012-02-24 10:24 · Score: 1

Downs is not autistic . I am not completely opposed to this point of view but an insightful person would recognize the slippery slope here. In some cultures being female is a 'defect' and children are aborted. I think we shouldn't walk that easily into arbitrary determinations of worth ...
brainscans may cause austism by merxete · 2012-02-24 11:37 · Score: 0

Brainscans don't only detect autism, they also cause it.