Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Environmental causes

There is a recent study published indicating a very high increased risk of autism in the children of mothers who took valproic acide during pregnancy, for epilepsy.

There is also indication that chlorpyrifos, a pesticide still used in the US, greatly effects brain development and is strongly suspected of causing autism in some children and measurable abnormalities in brain development in others.

I don't know how commonly valproic acid is given now to women of child bearing age but it seems to be one environmental factor that is not much disputed, being in dozens of papers as a teratogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.130.19 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? In that case, you could propose an edit here on the talk page. Lova Falk talk 15:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We need secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

neurons

There are two descriptors with which ALL and every neuronal system are born, Autism & Schizofrenia, and it doesn´t matter if you are human, cat, dog, cow or dolphin (or for that matter a whales). At birth, there is solely a basic neuronal set and that neuronal set does NOT include social interaction, facial recognition, identity recongnition by and through sound nor any specific other recognition through any of the other sensor complexes.

A neuron, has: input, output, pathway delay, feedback, thresholds, ion concentrations, lamination (for long neurons) and EM (plate capacitor & mutual induction caused by traveling waves within those fibers which are close enough to each other) and neurotransmittor hormone jump points.

Autism, has NOTHING to do with social interaction, nor is it characterized by a lack of social interaction & communication. However, it is true that ONE of the EASIESTS to use diagnostics tools, IS, comparative social exchanges within the context of interaction (play) and verbal & physical utterances. (Dumb, but if a child is frustrated and it does NOT throw a rubber ducky, then it´s social context IS lacking. Assuming a level of social internal control solely expected of adults is not a very good diagnostic level of understanding, and could definitely indicate that the level of understanding of the adult, in context, is severely lacking [the adult has autism or aspergers (or merely frustrated) and is mirroring that onto the child].

Take the picture of the child with autism (altered state of one or more neuronal complex from a norm which by and through definition of a neuron growth IS defacto, allready autistic & schizofrenic). Placing the toys inline, is that a sign of slowness in complex visualization (the norm pretty much being a jumble), or is it a sign of expression OF complex visualiztion?

This article needs severe cleanup, it´s an adult mirroring principle of the complications of adults, including social rejection & frustration, societal incapacities in dealing with complications, more so than a definite pointer to what autism really is. Definitely a jumble of housetales, pure observational perspectives with respect to oneself, without capacitation to place the observational viewpoint (scientific principle) elsewhere. That later, a discapacitation to place the observational viewpoint elsehwere, thereby displacing the three point vector (observer, afector, feedback afector), is definitely considered a severe autistic lack in humans, one which most likely more than 80% of all neurological systems defacto have, due the egocentricity of any neuronal system (survival driven). (any comment not purely attack based [debate based is fine], kindly direct that too rbok.spare@yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and {{WP:TALK]]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Neuron II.

You are born with a base set, that might or might not be nueronall complete AS a base set, which might or might NOT develop in a complete set, or SOLELY into a parcial SPECIFIC set, it being that all the neurons would defacto attempt to interact with all sensor complexes & feedback systems afectors & interactors, thereby and through causing other neuronal complexes to form which are not considered the primary neuronal complexes for those functions (IE: the visual centers attempting to interact with the motor control center, for example). (rbok.spare@yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Autism and Memory

Hey everyone. Maria Izabel are in a Cognitive Psychology course at Davidson College. As part of this class, we will be working on editing articles in wikipedia. We are hoping to add an article about autism and memory. Do you think it would be better to simply add a memory section to the already existing Autism article page? Or would it be better to create a new page linked out (like an orphan article) about Autism and Memory? Let us know. Thanks! Feb. 15, 2013 --Haschorr (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)haschorr

Hi Maria and Izabel, and thank you for asking! At the top of the article, to the right, there is a small bronze star, indicating that Autism is a WP:featured article. Only one out of thousand articles in Wikipedia have earned this qualification. Now, in order not to lose this qualification a good habit is to first suggest every change that is more than just a minor one on the talk page, and reach consensus. That might be a bit strenuous for you. So I would recommend you to create a new page called "Autism and memory". With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

PS You do know that we have an article Autism and working memory? If it is mainly working memory you would like to write about, it is not a good idea to create a new article. Lova Falk talk 07:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I think we will go ahead and create a new page, "Autism and Memory." We are aware that the page "Autism and Working Memory" exists, however some of our other classmates will be editing that page. Here are our ideas for the new page. We would love to know what you think and also how we should go about creating a new page specifically on "Autism and Memory."

I. Background on Autism & Memory

-Memory in High-functioning & Low-functioning

-Causes of memory functioning

-Consequences of memory functioning

II. Types of Memory

-Prospective Memory

-Episodic/Autobiographical Memory

-Semantic Memory

-Traumatic Memory

-Visual/Facial Memory

-Verbal/Non-Verbal Memory

-Functional "Everyday" Memory

-Short Term Memory

-Long Term Memory

III. Further Research on Autism & Memory

-Here are the articles we are planning on referencing for this page.

1. Altgassen, M., Koban, N., & Kliegel, M. (2012). Do adults with autism spectrum disorders compensate in naturalistic prospective memory tasks?. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 42, 2141-2151. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1466-3

2. Boucher, J., Mayes, A., & Bigham, S. (2012). Memory in autistic spectrum disorder. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 458-496. doi:10.1037/a0026869

3. Crane, L., Pring, L., Jukes, K., & Goddard, L. (2012). Patterns of autobiographical memory in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 42, 2100-2112. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1459-2

4. Geurts, H. M., & Vissers, M. E. (2012). Elderly with autism: Executive functions and memory. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 42, 665-675. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1291-0

5. Jones, C. G., Happé, F., Pickles, A., Marsden, A. S., Tregay, J., Baird, G., & ... Charman, T. (2011). ‘Everyday memory’ impairments in autism spectrum disorders. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 41, 455-464. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1067-y

6. Maras, K. L., Gaigg, S. B., & Bowler, D. M. (2012). Memory for emotionally arousing events over time in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Emotion, 12, 1118-1128. doi:10.1037/a0026679

7. McMorris, C. A., Brown, S. M., & Bebko, J. M. (2012). An examination of iconic memory in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1748-9

8. Poirier, M., Martin, J. S., Gaigg, S. B., & Bowler, D. M. (2011). Short-term memory in autism spectrum disorder. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 247-252. doi:10.1037/a0022298

9. Southwick, J. S., Bigler, E. D., Froehlich, A., DuBray, M. B., Alexander, A. L., Lange, N., & Lainhart, J. E. (2011). Memory functioning in children and adolescents with autism. Neuropsychology, 25, 702-710. doi:10.1037/a0024935

10. Wojcik, D. Z., Moulin, C. A., & Souchay, C. (2013). Metamemory in children with autism: Exploring “feeling-of-knowing” in episodic and semantic memory. Neuropsychology, 27, 19-27. doi:10.1037/a0030526

Thanks for your help! --Haschorr (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Haschorr and --Maria Izabel (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Maria Izabel

That's great. I can't wait to read your article when it's done. Just one thing: Make sure all of your assertions, interpretations and conclusions are supported by secondary sources (reviews, scholarly book chapters, etc.) By all means refer to primary sources, but only say what secondary sources say about them. Good luck. If you need help with anything at all, leave a question at the wiki medical project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware, there is NO Wikipedia rule stating only secondary sources are allowed. There are some editors who insist on saying this is so. Ask them for links to that rule. They will give you a link which states secondary sources are favored and primary sources may only be used with certain caveats. But then, when you use the primary source with the caveats, entirely properly, they tell you it's forbidden. A prohibition on primary sources is not good with autism where the pace of research is so fast that you cut out a huge portion of the knowledge by not citing primary sources. For example, this article, supposedly so good, does not contain some of the most useful information it could have because of the enforcement of this rule that does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.209.213 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources trump primary sources. We don't get to evaluate primary sources, but when expert do, in secondary sources, we are in much better shape. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a pretty good statement of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.209.213 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Add new The Lancet study from wikinews?

• Genetics links between five major psychiatric disorders: autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia per recent study: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5266/20130228/five-very-different-major-psych-disorders-shared-genetics.htm
• doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61345-8

99.109.125.252 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi 99.109.125.252! I hope you don't mind I removed the reflist and instead showed your link. It is too new - that is, not confirmed by other studies and described in a review. Lova Falk talk 09:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is some mass media coverage ...

• 5 Disorders Share Genetic Risk Factors, Study Finds February 28, 2013 The New York Times
• Psychiatric Disorders Linked Genetically February 27, 2013 WSJ

108.195.139.168 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The importance of this news, like most lay coverage of the "cause of autism" has been vastly overstated by the headlines. The NYT comment "Researchers say there seem to be hundreds of genes involved and the gene variations discovered in the new study confer only a small risk of psychiatric disease" is important. The statement that these disorders "share a genetic link" is way too simplistic and gives the impression everyone with these genetic changes have the disorder or that everyone with the disorder has these changes -- neither of which is remotely true. See NHS Choices commentary. Colin°^Talk 09:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are some genetic causes of autism where genotype DOES determine phenotype, that is, in which everyone who has the gene or copy number variant IS autistic But those don't account for the majority of cases, at least among those that have been discovered to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Face recognition

Hello, this is Sarah Hamilton and Katie Stephan. We are a part of the Cognitive Psychology course at Davidson College. We plan to make a new page for Autism and Face Recognition that parts of the original autism page can link to. Here is our outline for the face recognition page so far:

Memory for faces (Huack 1998; Boucher 1992)

Huack 1998

Impaired face memory but not object memory

Correlated with verbal reasoning and social comprehension

May be causal of social delays

Boucher 1992

Evidence for better recognition of familiar faces

Impairments in recognizing unfamiliar faces

Possible explanations for deficits:

Discrimination difficulties, abnormalities of looking, inattention, visual memory impairment

Processing

Part-based vs. Holistic Processing (Joseph 2003; Spezio 2007; Farrah 1993; Langdell 1978)

Bottom-Up processing

Focus on features

Mouth

Strategies in older autistic children (Joseph 2003; Langdell 1978

Implications in Social Context

Joseph 1997

Decreased positive affect

Attended to faces only half as much a Down Syndrome children

Even in familiar situations (Mother directed attention)

Osterling 2003

Even 1 year-old decreased face attention

Mechanisms/Neuropsychology

Activity within Autistic brain

Fusiform face area in general (Kanwisher 1997; Puce 1995)

In autistic children there is activity outside the fusiform face area (Schultz 2000; Pierce 2001)

We welcome any questions or comments!

Sehamilton (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah and Katie, and welcome. It's hard for me to now which sources you intend to use, because the information is too short (are they articles? books?). However, I do hope they are mostly WP:secondary or tertiary sources? (Reviews instead of singular studies). Also, I would recommend at least adding a few newer sources. There ought to be rather recent review articles about autism and face recognition - I guess... With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) regarding sources for medical articles. The section "Searching for sources" gives advice for searching PubMed for reviews on the topic. There may also be recent academic textbooks that cover the topic (perhaps just a chapter). Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. The section "Citing medical sources" links to an online tool that makes it easy to generate citation templates given just the PubMed ID of the paper. A full citation makes it much easier for folk to identify the paper and access it. You should be looking for reviews or chapters in professional textbooks ideally from the last 5 years and almost certainly not before 2000 unless the work is still regarded as relevant today (i.e. cited in recent publications). Be very wary of using primary research papers as sources because there is a risk you will be relying too much on your own interpretation rather than that of others (which is called original research on Wikipedia and although desirable in academia, is not desirable on Wikipedia). Cheers, Colin°^Talk 21:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, welcome. I, too, urge you to avoid including any interpretations that are not already found in secondary sources (such as reviews). All we are allowed to do here is report what independent experts have said. Cite individual studies by all means but only say about them what independent expert reviewers have said (and cite those reviewers too).

Can I also add a plea to be very careful with the distinction between correlation and causation? Unless a reviewer expressly says the underconnectivity and reduced size of the ffa is a result of reduced looking at faces, or expressly says the reduced ffa grey and white matter is the cause of some behaviour, please avoid doing so. Getting this right is important. If one reviewer asserts a probable causal relationship where another is only willing to acknowledge correlation, don't pick one and ignore the other on the issue.

Finally, notice how often the reviewers use "may", "probable", "possible" etc and try to convey that same degree of uncertainty. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested source:Weigelt, Sarah (March 2012). "Face identity recognition in autism spectrum disorders: A review of behavioral studies" (PDF). Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 36 (3): 1060–1084. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.12.008. PMID 22212588. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. Katie and I are reworking our outline and getting more review and book sources. We will post a revised outline by Friday this week. For those of you that wanted to see our sources more specifically, see below.

^ Osterling, Julie; Geraldine,Dawson; Munson, Jeffrey (2002). "Early recognition of 1-year-old infants with autism spectrum disorder versus mental retardation". Development and Psychopathology 14: 239-251. doi:10.1017/S0954579402002031. Retrieved 2/12/2013.

^ Pierce, Karen; Muller, R.A., Ambrose, J., Allen, G.,Chourchesne (2001). "Face processing occurs outside the fusiform 'face area' in autism: evidence from functional MRI". Brain 124: 2059-2073.

^ Puce, A (1995). "Face-sensitive regions in human extrastriate cortex studied by functional MRI". Journal of neurophysiology 74: 1192-. Retrieved 2/12/2013.

^ Klin, Ami (2000). "Abnormal ventral temporal cortical activity during face discrimination among individuals with autism and asperger syndrome". Archives of General Psychology 57: 331-. Retrieved 2/12/2013.

^ Spezio, Michael; Adolphs, Ralph; Hurley, Robert; Piven, Joseph (28 Sept 2006). "Abnormal use of facial information in high functioning autism". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37: 929-939. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0232-9.

^ Farah, Martha (1993). "Parts and wholes in face recognition". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 46: 225-245. Retrieved 2/12/2013.

^ Boucher, Jill; Lewis, Vicky (1992). "Unfamiliar face recognition in relatively able autistic children". Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (Blackwell) 33: 843-859. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb01960.x. Retrieved 2/12/2013.

^ Joseph, Robert; Tager-Flusberg, Helen (1997). "An investigation of attention and affect in children with autism and down syndrome". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disroders 27: 385-396.

^ Joseph, Robert; Tanaka, James (2003). "Holistic and part-based face recognition in children with autism". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44: 529-542. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00142.

^ Kanwisher, N (1997). "The fusiform face area: A module in human extra striate cortex specialization for face perception". The journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 17: 4302-4311. Retrieved 2/12/2012.

^ Langdell, Tim (1978). "Recognition of Faces: An approach to the study of autism". Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (Blackwell) 19: 255-265. Retrieved 2/12/2013.

Sehamilton (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Katie and Sarah. Thank you for your list. Actually not one of them is a secondary source! It seems that you have problems identifying secondary sources. It is not so difficult though. When an article says: "In this study, we..." you know it is a primary source. When the article is called review, or it says, for instance, "In this paper we review..." you know it is a secondary source. You also chose quite old material. However, neuropsychology has developed tremendously these last decades, and you should avoid using articles written in the 20th century. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are NOT forbidden, just so you know. You can use them. As said in the Talk section above secondary sources trump primary, but if primary sources are not disputed they are usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.209.213 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Katie and I have been working on our project and have decided to post it within the face perception page rather than on the autism page. We will put a link to the face perception page on this page under the social development section at the end of the second paragraph. If you feel that there should be more links or the link is placed in the wrong place, link as you will or let me know. Thanks for all your help. best, Sehamilton (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding possible benefits of yoga and breathing techniques to the "management" section.

I stumbled upon a research article which indicated that yoga, breathing techniques and meditation are options worth pursuing for management of autism. I found the page - http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aurt/2012/835847/abs/ containing this info - Autism Research and Treatment Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 835847, 11 pages doi:10.1155/2012/835847 Title: Meditation as a Potential Therapy for Autism: A Review I intended to add these lines extracted from the abstract - "Evidence from clinical studies and neuroscience research suggest that an approach built on yogic principles and meditative tools is worth pursuing. Desired outcomes include relief of clinical symptoms of the disease, greater relaxation, and facilitated expression of feelings and skills, as well as improved family and social quality of life." I'm new to wiki and seek guidance for this. Thank you. Traintogain (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Traintogain, thanks for posting your suggestion here. Per WP:MEDRS we do like review articles rather than primary research articles. The problem is that the authors are actually reviewing meditation in general and purely speculating that this might help with autism. They don't cite any research looking at meditation and autism. The article is open-access so you can read it all, not just the abstract. Also we shouldn't copy other people's text directly (unless we want to quote it) and should rewrite in our own words keeping faithful to the source. I'm a bit concerned this journal is probably not the best we should use but others here know more about me wrt how to rate journals. Per WP:WEIGHT we need to consider whether it is widely held that meditation could help autism, and I suspect this idea is not common. So these reasons indicate we should not mention this speculation at present. If people actually do research on meditation and autism and actually do discover a therapeutic benefit, which is widely agreed on, then that would be worth including. Colin°^Talk 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Autism and vaccinations

Hello, I'm trying to modify a paragraph in the "Causes" chapter. The idea is to change the tone from "The research community absolutely has consensus that there's no correlation between vaccinations and autism" to "The research community mainstream thought is there is no correlation but there are studies suggesting there might be some correlation, therefore the subject is currently opened to controversy".

I'm suggesting changing the paragraph:

"Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination. This has led to unsupported theories blaming vaccine "overload", a vaccine preservative, or the MMR vaccine for causing autism. The latter theory was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud". Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about a potential vaccine link with autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations, outbreaks of previously controlled childhood diseases in some countries, and the preventable deaths of several children."

to:

"The mainstream research community thought is that there is no connection between vaccinations and autism, however, there is still controversy on this subject (see ,, vaccine "overload", Thiomersal controversy, MMR vaccine). The initial theory that the MMR vaccine could cause autism was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud". However, a 2010 research study finds there might be a connection between hepatitis B vaccination and autism. In 2012 the US government compensated 10 year-old Ryan Mojabi and Jillian Moller's 15 month-old daughter Emily for vaccination-caused autism. In the US, the recommended vaccine schedule started including sensibly more vaccines after 1985-1995, and many more vaccines after 2000-2005 [1]. The autism incidence rate also shows a dramatic increase after ~1990 [2], but it is currently unknown if there is a connection between the two. Adding to the complexity of the problem, parental concern about a potential vaccine link with autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations, outbreaks of previously controlled childhood diseases in some countries, and the preventable deaths of several children ."

The original paragraph has multiple problems: first sentence is plain illogical (parents become aware their child is autistic exactly after a vaccination but that's by pure coincidence, how comes?) and dis-considers the position of thousands of parents firmly convinced that their children became autistic because of particular vaccinations, it wrongly generalizes to conclude that if one article suggesting vaccination-autism correlation was a fraud then all articles with similar suggestions must be fraudulent too (MMR vaccine controversy was caused by a fraudulent article, but is not fraudulent).

I'm curious on your feedback, but pls consider that my wiki time is very limited, especially if the editing process becomes excessively bureaucratic.

Thanks and regards, Doruuu (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• See Q1 and Q2 of Talk:Autism/FAQ. For a little more detail;
• (a) Parents often become aware of autistic traits in their children around the time of vaccinations simply because the time when such traits become obvious is around the time that children have such standard vaccinations; it's simply co-incidental. (b) That Hep B study was found to be widely flawed [3]; I am no medical expert, but that falls down on its (mis)use of statistics even before you get to that point. See also the sections in Causes of autism. (c) Yes, we do not consider the position of those "thousands" of parents, because there are many areas in which "thousands" of people believe something which is scientifically unlikely or impossible; this does not mean their beliefs should be presented as a valid alternative (WP:UNDUE) and certainly in this case Wikipedia would be seriously culpable if it gave any impression to parents that it would be advantageous for their children to not be vaccinated. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) You're saying that cases where children suddenly turn autistic happen anyway (with vaccinations or not) - and such events that happen to be just after some vaccination can wrongly be related to autism. Makes sense if and only if cases of children suddenly turning autistic are widely known to happen. Can you prove that is the case? If not, I'd suggest remove that sentence from main article. If yes, congratulations for being an effective wiki editor, but that sentence still needs modification - the message should be "Cases of sudden autism change are known (citation), and those that happen right after vaccinations can often be wrongly interpreted as vaccination-triggered autism".

(b) Does [4] qualify as a reliable source? Author is unknown. Publisher is a web publication started and maintained by 2 people, none of them professionally trained with autism. And I read the article over and over, and still wonder where are the proofs that the original study "was flawed". The original author had access to some ~7000 cases - at an autism incidence of ~1/200 the autism group size (33) makes perfect sense.

(c) That's interesting - you assume your role is to become an active media opinion driver, rather than a neutral media informer. Don't assume readers are much less intelligent than you and they need your filtering. I thought wikipedia is about presenting naked facts. Are wikipedia in general or some/many main editors vested with interest in interpreting information?? Because then I know I'm in the wrong place. My only interest here is to present naked facts without passion or personal interpretation - regardless of who or what gets disturbed. Doruuu (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Black Kite has said. Wikipedia articles are based on what authoritative scholarly systematic reviews say on a topic. We can't decide how much weight to give individual studies - we have to wait for experts to evaluate them. In the case of the hep B study, it doesn't warrant a mention for the reason stated by Black Kite. As for court findings, we don't base efficacy or safety claims on those, just position statements from scholarly societies, scholarly reviews and similar. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) So [5] is an "authoritative scholarly systematic review" in your judgement. It's not in mine. The reason stated by Black Kite is a poor quality article by any standard. It does not show any explicit problem with original article. Even if it did, it means there are contradictory opinions that should be both presented, without our interpretation. Doruuu (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(b) Are you saying that court findings are not relevant for the issue? I'd say they are, regardless of any wikipedia editing rule potentially forbidding mentioning them. And we don't need to prove anything in that paragraph - if facts are under controversy we'd better just present all relevant points of view and abstain from any interpretation/filtering.

No, that blog commentary is not a reliable source. I'm saying the criticisms it contains, such as sample size, are the reasons why we avoid interpreting or even reporting primary sources. We wait for expert evaluation, and report that. Once that hep B study has been evaluated by an independent expert in a scholarly journal or university-level textbook or monograph, then, if it is noteworthy, we may report what the independent expert has to say about it. Until then we won't be reporting what the study authors have to say about it, or what you or I have to say about it.

Court findings mean nothing in terms of efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions. There are many more forces at play in a compensation case than simply the scientific evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Doruuu, we don't edit WP articles in order to push a point of view. Rather, we should research the best possible literature on a topic and write the article based on that literature -- not on what we personally think. BTW, I suggest you buy one of Paul Offit's very accessible books on vaccines (he's written about the autism vaccine scare but also he's written about a real vaccine tragedy concerning polio). Colin°^Talk 14:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you consider my suggestions are personal beliefs rather than documented facts presented in a neutral manner? I'm seeing that logical and non-personal arguments fail over and over, and I start to conclude there is something wrong with the system here. Thanks for suggestion. Doruuu (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You say "I thought wikipedia is about presenting naked facts." Actually it isn't. One can string any old collection of "facts" together to make the argument one wants to present. It's called journalism. Yes your suggestions strongly appear to reflect your personal beliefs and aren't supported by the best quality literature and research on these issues. Your comments about "children suddenly turn autistic" show a deep ignorance of the subject and child development. Please see WP:WEIGHT. We don't write controversial articles by filling it with 50% of the crap spouted by anti-vacciationists and ambulance-chasing-lawyers, "balanced" with 50% of the measured careful writing of professionals. We read the best sources and may conclude that the crap doesn't get a look-in. If folk want to read what celebrity models and actors think about autism then they can buy the Daily Mail or use Google for their health research. Wikipedia tries to do better. Colin°^Talk 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

About the "naked facts" statement: my message was that we should not personally interpret whatever we're presenting on wikipedia - just present the latest unambiguous facts in a honest try to completely describe the subject and let the readers draw conclusions. You take my statement out of context and twist it to fit your whatever purpose. You seem to suggest a dangerous "let me interpret things for the readers" attitude. Great, congratulations. "Children suddenly turning autistic ..." - what do you understand from my statement? Something like from one minute to the next???? "Sudden" in this context obviously means consistent behavior changes over weeks/months that persist afterwards. Did you even try to understand what I was questioning? I tried to present facts qualifying as "reliable", without any interpretation. What exactly do you call "crap"? It would be so easy for me to call your comments a mixture of negligent attitude, politically-motivated manipulation and a huge dose of stupidity. However, I don't do that, out of respect for what wikipedia was in the past. If you really want to be helpful how about taking every controversial statement, doing a cold analysis, and tell exactly is wrong, to-the-point. Spare blanket statements like "we read best sources", "wikipedia tries to do better", etc, I guess your next step is to give me advises on how to life a healthy life - thx but no thx. Do you expect references to "celebrity models", Daily Mail and "ambulance-chasing-lawyers" to help here, or you just like to insult people? If it's people like you that gate wiki edits then wikipedia has already became a political platform, or even worse - a self-guarded bastion of stupidity. It's ironical that it's shaping to be the very things it was created to fight against - misinformation&disinformation. Doruuu (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Science has rejected any connection between vaccinations and autism, please see the FAQ. The only people left spouting this nonsense are ambulance chasing lawyers and half informed half witted actors and celebrities, oh and conspiracy theorists. (These are not mutually exclusive categories). This issue is resolved and has been for a long time. It is time to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have enough energy to copy-paste my answers just because you answer before reading. Logical arguments obviously don't work here any more. Time to move out. Doruuu (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Dbrodbeck, I don't believe anything is "resolved" in science or scholarship, and for sure not on Wikipedia articles. Doruuu is entitled to politely raise any questions here. We are at liberty to ignore Doruuu if WP:IDHT becomes an issue. (I don't think nearly enough ignoring goes on on Wikipedia.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

About us reporting naked facts and not interpreting what we present: it's just not possible to do that. The simple act of choosing to report a fact is interpreting it as worthy of reporting, the facts we surround it with impart context. That is why we wait for scholars to review facts before we report them: so that they provide the evaluation (worthiness) and relevance (context). We are a tertiary source, a source that relies on secondary sources to supply value and meaning to "raw facts" before we report them.

Logical argument does work here. But we have norms that govern what goes into the top Google result for most topics, and the arguments above reflect those norms well. You can change those norms, though, by force of argument on the relevant policy talk pages. Policies and guidelines are undergoing constant renewal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Doruuu, "just present the facts - let the readers draw conclusions" is a fallacy. As others have said, any collection of facts can be loaded towards one conclusion or another. You are simply misinformed about autism and vaccination and should read better material on the subject. There isn't much point in discussing all the other details you raised because until you get yourself better informed about the subject, we won't make any progress. Colin°^Talk 08:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations guys, you just managed to get one wiki user disgusted enough to avoid wikipedia. Keep on the aggressive and insulting language, and maybe more will consider wiki alternatives. I didn't know what can of worms I'm opening. Finding hysterical people guarding this page and being insulted for making a polite suggestion were the last things I expected. Anthonyhcole, better ignore/ban users than insult them.Doruuu (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank encephalopathy may follow vaccination in a very, very minute number of cases, and frank encephalopathy may in some cases be followed by permanent neurodevelopmental problems -including autism-like symptoms. Whether the frank encephalopathy that very, very rarely follows some vaccinations is the kind of encephalopathy that is sometimes followed by autism-like symptoms is yet to be determined, I think, by science. If this has been addressed in a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, then I think it needs to be very carefully addressed somewhere on the encyclopedia, though not necessarily in this article. Is it? I don't see it in Causes of autism. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth mentioning here. The cause there is the encephalopathy. Lots of other things cause that too and probably vaccination is not the most important cause of encephalopathy. Colin°^Talk 08:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

By "here", do you mean Wikipedia, or this article? I raise this because it seems to be one of the few perennial points raised by vaccine→autism advocates, so covering the science on it (if there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources addressing it) would be filling an important gap (and incidently save a lot of talk-page discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See Genetics and the myth of vaccine encephalopathy, Explanation for Vaccine Encephalopathy and Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccination and Dravet Syndrome. There's a pretty strong case that so-called vaccine-induced-encephalopathy is a lawer-invented syndrome and an artefact of the the US vaccine compensation laws. Anyone looking for a classic example of a "my baby suddenly became ill and was never the same again" disease could pick Dravet Syndrome as a textbook example. And one for which we now know has a clear genetic cause. Autism's cause isn't as simple but the same pattern applies. Colin°^Talk 12:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not read all the foregoing, and I don't have a quote from a review to use, but if there is to be discussion of the rare cases of some severe encephalopathy in reaction to vaccine, there should be some balancing with the risks of not vaccinating. And ideally, that discussion should be not about the risk if no one gets vaccinated, I suspect all but the most ignorant parents understand that, but the risks to the child herself who is not vaccinated. There must be something online giving these odds. Rubella, some types of meningitis, whooping cough, add them all up and it's probably more than the 1 in 2,000 or less chance your kid will get severe encephalopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out here, what Doruuu was apparently talking about, some kind of encephalopathy following vaccination is NOT thoroughly rejected by all scientists as Drodbeck claimed. I saw a video with the former President of INSAR, International Society for Autism Research, in which he stated basically they are not sure there aren't a small percentage of cases in which this happens. So, not to get personal but former President of INSAR vs. Drodbeck. ????

Also, the comment about Doruuu being too ignorant of the subject to be worth talking to is just plain wrong. Again, Past President of INSAR vs. some Wikipedia editor. I mean, since we are making so much over good sources.........

Doruuu is right, but maybe it's best not to put it in the article, so many people will misuse the information.

On the other hand, if you are the parent of one of those children, and observe this happen, and then are told you must be mistaken, you might not check out mitochondrial disease or some other cause and not take action to protect your kid in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. It is not just me who rejects the autism vaccination link. The argument from authority will get you nowhere. Please see the sources that Colin provided as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you are taking things very personal. I don't think it's just you that rejects a vaccine/autism link. Just so you know, I feel the stats tell us clearly a child is safer from brain disease after being vaccinated, even in the US where other people are likely vaccinated. But you are overstating and oversimplifying the case a bit I think. Some scientists think some children can react to vaccines with encephalopathy, that's all. Maybe including this would be undue weight and just confuse people. Likely it would. But it would be better to point out the epidemiological stats for this and show how rare this encephalopathy is rather than tell the guy he does not know what he's talking about when that statement does not really have solid support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This (today) is my first attempt at editing / talking. I started because I am a PhD university scientist/professor, and the info on wikipedia is striking me as glossing over/ rejecting and studies that are questioning the preferred view on vaccinations, in a way that is getting scary. I have no vaccine injured kids, and know none personally. But I do know the research. the tipping point: there is back and forth about including that brain pathology can or cannot be caused by vaccination process (above) "some scientists think some children can react to vaccines with encephalopathy..." reality check-- even vaccine manufacturers know that research supports this as an occasional, rare but real adverse event/side effect. see package inserts. YES THIS IS KNOWN TO HAPPEN. to suppress this fact is just not appropriate, it would be censorship. The US government compensates for vaccine induced encephalopathy with very little proof because of the clear eveidence this happens. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html The question of autism might be controversial -- but when the vaccine safety issue extends to if there is a question if post-vaccination inflamation of the brain should maybe be stated as 'does not happen' and/or should not be mentioned: I am scared. This is not fact reporting, thus I am tossing my hat into the wiki ring. The pendelum has swung way too damn far by a fair bit. I will be fair and amlost timid, and will document everything. But there is some science missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr explorer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, welcome to wikipedia. You would need to find a high quality secondary review to meet WP:MEDRS in order to insert that info. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

News

• The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon"

there are flaws in the data set, which are not being reported by media http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/41866/InTech-Vaccine_safety_study_as_an_interesting_case_of_over_matching_.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr explorer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources for maternal antibody related autism

I know there is a lot of hatred for me for past dispute but does this mean valid conttent is kept out of the article?

I've found secondary sources for the maternal antibody theory of autism

A book by Springlink titled Autism, Current Theories and Evidence, on page 308states basically what i've put on here many timesm, that maternal antibodies to fetal brain are responsible for a significant percentage of autism cases.

This is a secondary source. I'm sorry I did not find it earlier but anyway, it's here now.

I think many editors who watch this page also watch "Causes of Autism". I've tried to put the same edit on that page but it gets removed with a reference to the dispute here abou secondary vs. primary sources.

Whatever the merits of that debate, what is the rationale for removing edits supported by secondary sources? Doesn't anyone want to put this in this article or at least the other one because it benefits the article?

This theory is not at all controversial if that helps. Besides I think 3 valid secondary sources now, there are a couple of dozen papers supporting it, and no refutations i've ever seen from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note before considering responding, please read this ANI discussion and this ANI discussion regarding this IP-hopping editor's disruptive editing history at autism-related articles. Per WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP, this editor's edits may be reverted without discussion if they are found to be disruptive. Zad68 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this, there was a recent review by Fox, Amaral et al from 2012. There was an older review from 2011 or 2010 by Gupta et al. There is a chapter in the book "Autism: Current theories and Evidence" by Springlink press, a science pubishing company. I wish we could just talk about the facts here. Besides at least 3 secondary sources there are dozens of primary sources, original papers in peer reviewed journals. I have not seen any researcher anywhere express any doubts about this theory, so it's not being used to rebut a secondary source. Would it help if I apologized for being too contentious in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC) There is something maybe not all editors understand that really ought to be emphasized in the article. There are a lot of different causes for autism. There is nothing mutually exclusive about maternal antibodies causing 10% of cases and various genetic problems causing 80% and miscellaneous other causes the other 10%. No one should be thinking "it can't be antibodies we know it's genetic" The article as a whole does not make this point clear, which is very out of date becuase the US National Institute of Health web page is unambiguous on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight tag - Brain systems section

An editor added four new sections under Brain systems, and they all seem to relate to the "triple network model". As far as I can tell, the additions were three new sections describing each of the three parts of this model, and then the fourth covers the triple network model. All this new material revolves around one 2011 review article, PMID 21908230 by Menon. It appears to be the only review article covering this concept. I am concerned that these sections now place undue weight on this one review, can anyone more familiar with the sourcing address this? Zad68 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be undue weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been cited in 40 articles in respectable journals, and it looks pretty awesome to me, as a proposed neural substrate of madness, or at least the template for its discovery. I'll see if I can find some responses over the next couple of days - I don't have much time just now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Embarrassed to say I can't exactly figure out how to get PubMed to show me the list of publications that cite this work, can you paste the URL for how to do that? I can see "related citations" but that appears to include things cited by this work, and that's not what I want.

No doubt it's a really interesting theory but the concern is WP:UNDUE... do the sources show that this theory is now the dominating "brain systems" pathophysiology model for the mechanism of autism? The paragraphs on the underconnectivity theory, stimulus processing and relationship to schizophrenia were all pushed down into more-minor subsections to make way for this new material. Has the literature on the theories of the mechanisms of autism changed significantly in this way in the past few years to the point where the triple network model has taken over the conversation? I really don't know the answer, just asking the question. I'm leaving it up to those more familiar with the sourcing base for autism to decide, just want to make sure the new material is presented in due weight with respect to the material that was already in the article. Zad68 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think PubMed lists citing articles, I got my 40 from Google Scholar. I'm not saying the theory/paradigm belongs in this article, I don't know. It's unlikely at this early stage. I'm just saying I love where it's heading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem early days, but yeah it looks promising. 40 cites in two years is not bad, though admittedly, this is not specifically my field. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not mine either. Depending on what those 40 citations say about it, if it's not sufficiently relevant or WP:DUE here, it may warrant a stand-alone article. (Still haven't read any of those cites.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Brain Systems

Njbetz (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2013

There is a new research published about neuronal connections in autistic and/or tuberous sclerosis complex affected brains:
″'Network' analysis of the brain may explain features of autism″ http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/bch-ao022213.php

I suggest editing sentence supported by reference 3. AdiXbiker (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, I would hold off until a secondary source takes a look at it though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this request per the above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST under heritability (genetics) Recent research finds a larger role for shared environment. Heritibility estimates range from .37 to .9 ( Rationale: although genes matter, clearly it is not all genes -- and recent research is finding lower H'. ) High heritability estimates have been reported, but the most recent studies investigating shared environment effects find shared environment is accounting for more of the variance. Hallmayer and colleagues found moderate heritability of .37, with a larger amount of variance related to shared environment effects. ref: Hallmayer, J. et al. (2011). Genetic heritability and shared environmental factors among twin pairs with autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68,1095-102. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr explorer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Heritability estimates based on indentical twin concordance are seriously flawed when the twins shared the same prental environment, or at least a very similar prenatal environment. This is borne out by many primary sources. Fraternal twins have a much higher concordance for autism and ASD than siblings, though genetically they are just as related. So the prenatal environment is very important. Hallmayer et al is not the only source for this. it must be in secondary reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC) I agree totally with the comments above. Why is fraternal twin concordance so much higher than sibling concordance? However, whatever new research says, the article must not be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.172 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Triple network model" changes

Per the above discussions, I'm moving the newly-added "triple network model" changes here from the article for discussion. The new material looks interesting but there are unanswered WP:UNDUE concerns. I had contacted the editor who added the material originally but they have stopped editing since it was added, it appears to have been added as a school assignment. Let's work out the appropriate weight for the new material and re-incorporate as appropriate. Zad68 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Brain systems

Mirror neuron system

The mirror neuron system (MNS) theory of autism hypothesizes that distortion in the development of the MNS interferes with imitation and leads to autism's core features of social impairment and communication difficulties. The MNS operates when an animal performs an action or observes another animal perform the same action. The MNS may contribute to an individual's understanding of other people by enabling the modeling of their behavior via embodied simulation of their actions, intentions, and emotions. Several studies have tested this hypothesis by demonstrating structural abnormalities in MNS regions of individuals with ASD, delay in the activation in the core circuit for imitation in individuals with Asperger syndrome, and a correlation between reduced MNS activity and severity of the syndrome in children with ASD. However, individuals with autism also have abnormal brain activation in many circuits outside the MNS and the MNS theory does not explain the normal performance of autistic children on imitation tasks that involve a goal or object.

Autistic individuals tend to use different areas of the brain (yellow) for a movement task compared to a control group (blue).

ASD-related patterns of low function and aberrant activation in the brain differ depending on whether the brain is doing social or nonsocial tasks.

Default network and task-positive network

ASD-related patterns of low function and aberrant activation in the brain differ depending on whether the brain is doing social or nonsocial tasks. A 2008 brain-imaging study found a specific pattern of signals in the cingulate cortex which differs in individuals with ASD. A 2011 review states that evidence suggests that an entire network of brain regions involved in social and emotional processing, the default network or "default mode" network (DMN), shows reduced functional connectivity. This indicates that the brain regions do not communicate in the same way that they would in a typical brain. Two main hubs of the DMN, the posterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex, appear to be hypoactive relative to neurotypical adults, which may disrupt the functioning of the entire network. Dysfunction in DMN connectivity is prominent in adolescents and young adults with autism, suggesting that manifestation of DMN dysfunction may occur early in development. In contrast to the dysfunction in the DMN network, intact connectivity has been observed in a “central executive” network that is involved in sustained attention, cognitive control, and goal-directed thinking. In people with autism, this network (often called the task-positive network) and the DMN are not negatively correlated in time as found in typical adults, suggesting a possible imbalance in switching between the two networks, and possibly reflecting a disturbance of self-referential thought.

Salience network

The salience network (SN) is anchored in the anterior cingulate and the anterior insula. This network is thought to be involved in detecting, integrating, and filtering relevant interoceptive, autonomic, and emotional information to guide attention and action. The SN also includes two important subcortical structures: the amygdala and the substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area. These structures are thought to play a major role in detecting emotional and reward salience. Both functional MRI studies of social processing and MRI studies that measure the size of brain regions have shown dysfunction of the SN in individuals with autism. One of the regions consistently showing significant hypoactivity in autism is the right anterior insula. Dysfunction in this network may result in problems using internal body sensations to guide attention to salient social and other events, with significant consequences for both cognition and self-monitoring.

Recent studies demonstrate that in the typical brain the anterior insula provides an altering signal to initiate appropriate responses to salient stimuli. Because the anterior insula is underactive during social processing in individuals with autism, ineffective salience mapping of socially relevant cues may result in atypical social interactions. In contrast, hyperactivity of the anterior insula has been consistently implicated in anxiety disorders. The anterior insula is proposed to play a key role in experiencing negative and worrisome thoughts, as well as coordinating avoidance behaviors in individuals prone to anxiety. These are noteworthy findings because anxiety disorders are a common comorbid feature of many disorders, including autism. Therefore, hyperactivity of the anterior insula or other nodes of the SN may lead to pathologically enhanced salience detection in some situations (but not others). These findings may give explanation to many of the phenotypic or behavioral presentations of the disorder. For instance, symptoms like stimulatory behavior, increased anxiety, or neuroticism may be consequence of the anterior insula misattributing emotional salience to mundane events.

Triple network model

Because the default mode network, the salience network, and the central executive networks appear to underlie prominent features of many major psychiatric and neurological disorders (including autism, schizophrenia, ADHD, AD, FTD, depression and epilepsy), a common framework was recently proposed for understanding dysfunction across disorders: the triple network model. This model proposes that deficits in engaging and disengaging these networks play a significant role in many disorders, including autism. By studying networks instead of specific brain regions, it may be possible to gain new insights into understanding dysfunction across a number of disorders.

A significant number of disorders have symptoms that overlap with autism spectrum disorders, and autism spectrum diagnoses tend to be comorbid with other disorders. Many individuals with autism may also be diagnosed with or show symptoms of depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive tendencies, among others. The triple network model framework may help explain why these comorbidities occur, and allow customized interventions. Designing individualized interventions is important because autism manifests differently across individuals, often varying from individual to individual. Researchers focusing on the etiology of autism are beginning to recognize that symptoms cannot be ascribed to the isolated operations of single brain areas. The triple network model reflects a shift from studying specific brain region to studying coordinated brain networks. While it may remain unclear what initially causes the disturbances in brain function that characterize autism, understanding how they manifest in large-scale network function may provide insights into predicting dysfunctional behavior patterns and designing appropriate interventions, for autism as well as for a wide range of other psychopathologies.

References

Suggest update to clearly state there are many causes

The statement below is clearly out of date:

Causes

Main article: Causes of autism

It has long been presumed that there is a common cause at the genetic, cognitive, and neural levels for autism's characteristic triad of symptoms.[61] However, there is increasing suspicion that autism is instead a complex disorder whose core aspects have distinct causes that often co-occur.[61][62]

Should be replaced with quotes from NIMH clearly stating many causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.172 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM NIMH WEB PAGE

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a range of complex neurodevelopment disorders, characterized by social impairments, communication difficulties, and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. Autistic disorder, sometimes called autism or classical ASD, is the most severe form of ASD, while other conditions along the spectrum include a milder form known as Asperger syndrome, and childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (usually referred to as PDD-NOS)

Autism

Autism is oftenly found in young children aging from new borns to 5 year old.It is very easy to develop and just cause difficulty and quite odd side effects.ת — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.6.10 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Refs are required for this comment to be of help in improving the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture

I am really uncomfortable with the picture in the leded, and have changed it (though freely consent that a much better one than mine may be available). This is an identifiable child, doing something we are told is a characteristic autistic behaviour. Is the child autistic? Maybe, but the child hasn't consented to be used as an exemplar of autism and is unlikely to be a notable individual or notable example of autistic spectrum disorders. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been the picture for a long time, and this has been discussed in the past. We are free to use it as well. The kid's Mom gave consent for us to use it actually if you look at the file itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Original image upload page gives this youtube link. Description on youtube is liberal about identity of the child and use of the video. I don't see any problem using this image. neo (talk)

I am still really uncomfortable about it. The WP:ORish caption, the identifiable child, both seem distinctly un-Wikipedian to me. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All images are original research and we cannot get around that. If this were a requirement for images we would more or less have to delete them all. I support it continued inclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Asperger image being used as replacement has been deleted before for failing to meet NFCC criteria, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_18#Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg. No one seemed to question it when it was re-uploaded but I'm just saying that it has been questioned in the past. —Soap— 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I support keeping the picture. We will continue to rely on "home made" pictures because (a) we are a "free content" project so commercial stock pictures can't be used and (b) WMF don't had a budget for hiring their own photographers. And anyway, it is a million times more informative and better quality than the Hans Asperger pic. Colin°^Talk 08:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I also support keeping the picture, per Colin. Lova Falk talk 08:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

General consensus among scientists that there are hundreds of causes for autism, article should state this clearly

I realize I put this out before but there is no real doubt among real scientists there are many causes, probably hundreds, and hundreds of genes involved. Not hundreds in any single individual, hundreds of genes in toto for all cases of autism. Of course, it's still true maternal antibodies are the most common cause by far, even at only around 15% or so. The article should include these completely non controversial non refuted statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.59.138 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

CiteULike Autism research paper sharing group

Hopefully some may be able to use the information from the research papers included in the CiteULike Autism research paper library to update and correct this article. dolfrog (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dolfrog! Zad68 14:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

you may also find some of my online PubMed collections related to Autism useful, not all are listed on my user page

• Autism
• Autism (ASD) and MMR
• Autism (ASD) review articles
• Autism and Regression dolfrog (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we have recently had adding a box of links to high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So where is this box, hidden where only you can find it i presume dolfrog (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is at the top of this talk page and looks like this

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried this out on many articles and unfortunately many of the recommended papers are completely unrelated to the content of the articles. Maybe using the Google search engine would be an improvement. dolfrog (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto-- the link is unhelpful for many articles, and is not needed here. That template should be installed by consensus, not by bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect claim of link between autism and mental retardation

"Mental retardation. The percentage of autistic individuals who also meet criteria for mental retardation has been reported as anywhere from 25% to 70%, a wide variation illustrating the difficulty of assessing autistic intelligence.[165] In comparison, for PDD-NOS the association with mental retardation is much weaker,[166] and by definition, the diagnosis of Asperger's excludes mental retardation.[167]"

This section is outdated and incorrect in its claim. In has been shown that the vast majority of papers and studies that made a claimed link between the two, were found lacking in evidence (many entirely lacking in factual evidence) and often falling short of the requirements of the scientific method, and often relied on the use of testing methods that were based on communication abilities and not actual intelligent thinking abilities (in recent years reanalysis has shown about 97% of papers and studies claiming a link between autism and retardation, either did not have factual evidence or did not have the level of factual evidence required by scientific method). More advanced studies of autistic intelligence using tests that actually measure cognitive ability have shown that autism causes no mental impairment and that the level of mental retardation among autistics is the same as that of the general human population, and that the IQ distribution among autistics is generally the same as that of the general human population.74.74.120.130 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)–

The statement is referenced. Do you have a reference for your claim? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaints again Zad68, Dbrodbeck, McSly bad faith editing, Sock puppetry

I am just posting so Zad68 will know I've made a complaint of bad faith in editing against him or her, and made the same complaint against Dbrodbeck and McSly, but in their case, also going to raise the issue of sock puppetry and meat puppetry.

It's over at ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.221.130 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A Consensus review paper you may find of interest

I just came across this paper while researching another related topic, Consensus paper: pathological role of the cerebellum in autism 2012 which could be useful when updating the article dolfrog (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Autism is not a disease, it's part of our way of life, part of our personality

I'm strongly against Autism being classed as a 'disease' on this page, I'm deeply offended that on the article class's it as a disease due to possible trolling. Several sources here, here, I'm sick of this discrimination and mis-leading users. --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronnie42, nowhere in the article it is said that autism is a disease. It's just the name of the infobox and I agree with you that it would have been better if the infobox had another name. However, our usual reader cannot even see that the infobox is called "Infobox disease" and it is an huge job to change the name of the infobox, so personally I think it is better to let it be. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Autism and math skills

I would like to question the accuracy of a statement in the FAQ about how autistic children have "average math skills." I have found a recently published study that contradicts this notion. The study concluded, "Children with ASD showed better numerical problem solving abilities and relied on sophisticated decomposition strategies for single-digit addition problems more frequently than TD [typically developing] peers." In addition, another paper found that "autism (or autistic traits) and savant skills are inextricably linked." Accordingly, I request that the FAQ be changed. Jinkinson talk to me 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In support of the statement, the FAQ cites PMID 17947290, Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: a review of literature, which says "the majority of individuals with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability". What is the PMID of the study you're talking about? Please be aware that we weight secondary sources like literature reviews more highly than individual studies. Zad68 12:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I think I meant to include the study, but it slipped my mind somehow. Anyway, the first study is here: [6] The second study can be found here: [7]. Jinkinson talk to me 12:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We have been over this dozens of times (please review talk page archives both on this page and at Talk:Asperger syndrome). This (Wikipedia's) article cites a secondary literature review (see WP:MEDRS). The first source you provide is a primary source, which is contradicted by the secondary review. I do not have access to the full text of the second source you give, but a) if savant skills are linked to autism, that might belong in one of the savant articles, and b) I don't see that you've provided any quote that negates the text we have in the article. That skills may or may not be linked does not negate the secondary-review-cited data that most have average ability (savants are not most or even a sizeable minority). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy that the sources provided are insufficient to overcome the strength of what we're using in the article or in the FAQ. Zad68 16:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe both are right. It's possible for the majority of a population to have average math skills but for the population as a whole to have above average math skills. Think of it this way: you could have a country where the men are a little taller on average, the tallest men would be really tall, and there would be fewer short men, but still most of the men would be in the "average height" range. We could say, "While their math skills are higher on average, most of them have average math skills." Leadwind (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the sources are saying (think about focus on one small minority of a much larger population). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with the "Asperger syndrome" and "high-functioning autism" labels (and why they are being deprecated) is that many feel they are an artificial construct that has little epidemiological, causative or therapeutic value. If you take a population and exclude those with cognitive issues, then you are bound to get a population that is "above average" in certain measures. Like saying "Ford cars that aren't grey or black tend to be more colourful than the average car". It is meaningless. What is often not presented to a lay audience when autism and Asperger syndrome is discussed is the large number of people with learning difficulties who are on the autism spectrum. People don't make television programs or movies about them but visit any special school and you'll find plenty. So the general public have this misconception that people with autism are savants or are great mathematicians or software engineers. What we can't do is synthesise sources to make some kind of contrasting comment. Let's leave it to the high-quality secondary sources to comment on this issue. Colin°^Talk 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I hadn't appreciated how the Asperger diagnosis criteria skew the odds for IQ. I work in high-tech, and the Asperger folks I meet are smart, but obviously that's not a representative sample. Leadwind (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

unrelated article reference

Hi, I'm Leadwind. I usually work on leads, but when I find problems in the body, I fix them sometimes, too. I took this out of the article, "this extension is controversial, as many studies contradict the idea that baby boys and girls respond differently to people and objects.<ref>{{vcite journal |author=Spelke ES |title=Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: a critical review |journal=Am Psychol |volume=60 |issue=9 |pages=950–8 |year=2005 |pmid=16366817 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950 |url=http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2005.pdf |format=PDF }}</ref>" The editor is using this reference to question the hypothesis, when the reference doesn't even mention autism. It's an honest mistake, I'm sure, but it's WP:OR to use a reference to try to prove a point other than the point the reference is making. If this hypothesis really is controversial, then let's use a reference that demonstrates the controversy related to it, not just controversy over sex differences in general.

While I'm here, can I ask that someone please put something in the lead about the sex ratio? Autism demonstrates a consistent and significant sex bias. Leadwind (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Leadwind (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Assortive mating

This edit represents more of the same problems above; one theory (which by the way is disputed among geneticists, reference criticism of Comings' work in The Gene Bomb) is undue in this article. Please find secondary review sources independent of those who promote the theories, and then consider whether that text belongs in an overview of autism, or in causes of autism if good sourcing can be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen seems like the sort of expert that we should want to represent on this page. He's been doing original work in the field for 30 years, his doctoral advisor was a famous autism researcher, and he's the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge. If Baron-Cohen has something to say about the increase in autism, shouldn't our beloved reader get the chance to read it? This cited paper is in an evolutionary psychology handbook, which is controversial in some circles, but it is at least a notable point of view. Also, Baron-Cohen was in Time Magazine with this hypothesis, so the reader might be familiar with the idea already. We could say "Autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen has recently put forward the hypothesis that..." Then we're not giving the hypothesis too much weight. Leadwind (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, first, we prefer independent secondary reviews for any work from any researcher, see WP:V and WP:MEDRS. Second, there are daughter articles where SBC's work can be described in detail-- please don't use this article to expound on his work unless that work is referenced in secondary, high-quality, recent, independent reviews. Also, please see WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS; we strive to be an encyclopedia, not a news source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

social cognition theories

Treatment of the extreme male brain theory and mind blindness theory gets the order backward. Simon Baron-Cohen proposed mindblindness first (1985), and later he and his team proposed EMP as a way to explain the nonsocial issues that mindblindness doesn't explain. Anyone mind if I straighten that up? Leadwind (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this text:

The empathizing–systemizing theory postulates that autistic individuals can systemize—that is, they can develop internal rules of operation to handle events inside the brain—but are less effective at empathizing by handling events generated by other agents. An extension, the extreme male brain theory, hypothesizes that autism is an extreme case of the male brain, defined psychometrically as individuals in whom systemizing is better than empathizing. These theories are somewhat related to the earlier theory of mind approach, which hypothesizes that autistic behavior arises from an inability to ascribe mental states to oneself and others. The theory of mind hypothesis is supported by autistic children's atypical responses to the Sally–Anne test for reasoning about others' motivations, (and the mirror neuron system theory of autism described in Pathophysiology maps well to the hypothesis.

What is your proposal for "straightening it up"? My query/concern is related to the sections above, where you appear to want to give undue weight to one set of theories promoted by one researcher (as you indicate here, these are Baron-Cohen's theories) ... it would be optimal to understand your sourcing and how you plan to "straighten this up".

sources 1) and 2) PMID 17115076 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My proposal would be to reference Baron-Cohen himself describing first the mindblindness theory and then its replacement, EMB. It's an open question just how much weight this page should give to the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge. Probably some. Let's say we don't use up any more space than what's here. I just rework it. Is there anything more I could do to address your concern that I'm not going to give too much weight to Baron-Cohen and his team of researchers? Leadwind (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what is "backwards" about the quoted paragraph. It gives prominence to the newer theory. This isn't a history section, so the topics don't have to be in chronological order. The paragraph is already largely sourced to SBC rather than an independent source that compares and discusses several theories. Rather than fiddling with the word-order just to suit one person's taste as to what order to present things, perhaps we should be seeking a better source than one from 2009 that proposes a theory rather than independently discusses the theories. Without that, determining WP:WEIGHT is impossible, and per policy, must not be done by Wikipedian's trying to big-up one person's status. Colin°^Talk 07:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I, too, am struggling to see what it is you want to fix, but your proposal for fixing it is not the way to go. The mind-blindness theory would optimally be explained in its own article (there is one, that is where the description belongs), and it should be described according to independent secondary reviews. We are already sourcing too much of SBC's own work to him, when it would better be described by independent sources. And I agree with Colin on the types of sources we should be finding-- there are plenty of high quality secondary reviews, and there is no need to rely on SBC's own representations of his own work (same for any researcher), rather than that work as reviewed by others. One is a concern for length, another is a concern for independent reviews that analyze someone else's work. I suggest that you propose your change on talk for discussion, but that you first produce the independent secondary reviews from which we might all work and understand which direction you want to go. (I am separately becoming concerned that we need to figure out, post-DSM5, how to distinguish this article from autism spectrum, as there is some overlap that is now confusing considering the new DSM5 definition). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you really prefer to put the earlier theory later and the later theory earlier (and you're not just stonewalling because you're sick of me), I can work with that. The section could be a lot more informative without switching the order in which the theories are treated. But the reader deserves to know why the mindblindness theory has been set aside in favor of EMB, for example. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Fetal exposure to testosterone

I've removed this edit for discussion (source). If a secondary review, compliant with WP:MEDRS, can be found to back this text, it might be more appropriate to causes of autism. Unless important, recent reviews mention this, keeping the length of this overview article manageable is a concern. If no secondary reviews mention it, then whether it even belongs in the Causes sub-article is questionable. Is there a secondary review that mentions the testosterone theory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the text that Sandy removed:

An extension, the extreme male brain theory, hypothesizes that autism is an extreme case of the male brain, defined psychometrically as individuals in whom systemizing is better than empathizing.<ref name=E-S-theory/> Certain evidence associates traits of autistics with fetal exposure to testosterone.<ref name = "Whiteley">Whiteley, Paul, et al. [http://www.la-press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syndrome-and-autism-spectrum-disorder-article-a1900 Gender Ratios in Autism, Asperger Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorder]. Autism Insights. 5 March 2010. Retrieved 12 October 2013.</ref>

I know some people don't like to talk about sex differences, but unless we have some reason to doubt the paper that I referenced, it has a place in this article. Sandy says this is a speculative primary source, but if you read the paper you see that it summarizes a large number of findings in various fields. I know some people have a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of sex differences, and I don't want to get into a fight, but let's humbly summarize what the expert say instead of picking and choosing ourselves what goes on the page. Leadwind (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It works the other way, Leadwind. It is up to the person trying to insert "facts" to prove they are supported by the best sources and represent the best available evidence. It isn't up to others to prove they are poor or wrong. Unless reliable secondary sources on autism give WP:WEIGHT to the testosterone theory then it has no place in this article. Colin°^Talk 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Leadwind, I have no "pony in the race" with respect to sex differences, but I would appreciate it if you would review WP:WIAFA and WP:MEDRS. Those two pages, in conjunction with WP:UNDUE (and concerns about length of this featured article) will help you understand what we might include here, or in daughter articles, or anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First off I want to say that I am quite sympathetic to male brain idea. It fits nicely with a lot of data (I say this both as an experimental psychologist and the Dad of a kid with autism). That said, Colin and Sandy are right. We have to go with the secondary sources. We can't give undue weight to something that the secondary sources don't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I also don't agree with this use of this source. This source doesn't appear to even be indexed in either PubMed or MEDLINE so its reliability is in question. It also appears to be a primary source; we already have lots of secondary sources providing theories about causes of autism. We should stick with the secondary sources, not primaries. Zad68 00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry I got off on the wrong foot there. I'm used to sex-difference stuff getting deleted on political grounds, so that's what I assumed was going on. But if we're all friendly with the idea that fetal testosterone exposure creates inborn sex differences and if no one is trying to keep Baron-Cohen off the page, then my job is just to find a better source (if there is one). I'm familiar with the general WP standards, but the medical source policy is new to me. Leadwind (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you find a high quality, recent secondary review that discusses this, I doubt that you will find opposition to adding the text. But keep in mind that all medical content must conform to WP:MEDRS, but a featured article must additionally satisfy WP:WIAFA with respect to high quality sources, and we must also keep in mind due weight and the size of the article. You might want to also review WP:OWN#Featured articles ... it would be helpful if you discuss edits on talk, as there is generally a valid reason for exclusion/inclusion of most text here. As can seen from the section above, reasonable edits are accommodated :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit, this is an overview article, and an FA, which should rely on the highest quality recent secondary reviews. Could we find a place in daughter articles for Baron-Cohen speculation? Unless independent secondary reviews mention this, it might be better suited in a daughter article, and WP:UNDUE here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved this from the section above, as it seems to be more of same, and appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw this and I am unsure about it as well. Autism is not very well understood and there have to be dozens if not hundreds of theories regarding its origin and causes, it's not clear that this one particular theory is regarded highly enough to be included. The paper itself appears to be a primary source for the theory. Are there secondary sources that show this theory is well accepted? Zad68 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

autism

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I agree about having high standards for material on the autism page. I hope we don't end up in a fight. Sometimes the editors I meet who revert sex-difference material can get really worked up. I hope this isn't one of those times. We both just want the best article, right? Leadwind (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have encountered past issues with "sex-difference material", but I have no such history, concerns or issues. I do expect text inserted into any (medical) featured article to comply with WP:UNDUE and to meet the sourcing standards at WP:MEDRS, and the criteria at WP:WIAFA. You have made some good suggestions for improvements to the leads, but discussion of other text would best continue on article talk. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Leadwind (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to like Simon Baron-Cohen, but I don't see anything wrong with him. If you know something about him and why I shouldn't take him at face value, let me know. I don't want to take him seriously if he's a charlatan. Leadwind (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Leadwind: could you please stop making assumptions about other people's motives? As I have explained above, on medical FAs, our concern is that we use the highest quality, most up-to-date, independent, secondary reviews and respect due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

On Talk:Autism, you said, "Could we find a place in daughter articles for Baron-Cohen speculation?" Baron-Cohen looks like a prominent autism researcher, and he's been working on autism for 30 years now, but you think his theories are "speculation." Is there a reason that I should dismiss his theories as speculation? If so, I'd like to know. Leadwind (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please confine article discussion to article talk, where everyone can participate. Please, again, stop ascribing motives to people's edits. The quoted sentence would convey the same message if I had typed "for speculation", "for the speculation", or "for this speculation". The "Baron-Cohen" was merely a qualifier for "the" speculation.

Once again, this is a broad overview article, and because it is an FA, we should be using the highest quality, most recent secondary reviews and giving due weight to individual theories. Giving prominence to any one theory promoted by any given research is undue and could (in some cases) also involve cherry picking of sources to promote individual views. As I said, could we find a place for this one theory promoted by one researcher in a daughter article, such as causes of autism?

Alternately, if you can produce a recent, high-quality review by an independent researcher that discusses this theory, we could incorporate what that secondary review might say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see also my comment dated 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC), just above this new section, that addresses this same question. Where is the high-quality, authoritative secondary source that demonstrates Baron-Cohen's theory is noteworthy enough for inclusion in this overview article? Adding--looking at the Simon Baron-Cohen article, it would appear his theories should hold some weight. Shouldn't it be easy to find a secondary source that provides an overview of current theories and which features Baron-Cohen's? Zad68 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding ...we have already mentioned his theories in this article (see section below) ... but curiously, we are citing ... him. Leadwind, per due weight, please explain (according to independent recent secondary reviews) why we need more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Zad68: our article on Baron-Cohen didn't include numerous book reviews, such as this one: Book review from Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (in general, I would caution against basing decisions on what can be found on Wikipedia, which is a highly unreliable source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping... I did search around after reading the article on him, and it seemed plausible if not likely his theories would be noteworthy. I wasn't saying based on the article we definitely should showcase his work, I just laid the question out there... Surely you know more about the sourcing on this than I do. Zad68 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the person who wrote a good deal of our featured content on autism is no longer with us, but Colin and I both had worked with him on featured content, and he was thorough, knowledgeable, and competent. It is unfortunate that he has been gone for about four years now, and a good deal of the high-quality and well sourced content that he wrote is now deteriorating (an example of the deterioration can be found at empathizing–systemizing theory, where well written and correct criticism of the theory has been removed, and a mess has replaced it). If something is claimed to be missing in this article, there is generally a reason, so I go looking for it. Leadwind's insistence on including Baron-Cohen encouraged me to go study up on SBC's theories. One review called the extreme male brain theory a "contentious subject" and one (rather extreme) review labeled Baron-Cohen a "charlatan" (the same word Leadwind used). Someone with better journal access than I have will be better able to explain how and why his theories are not widely accepted, but again, I believe those discussions belong at those articles, and including any more here on one of many theories about causes of autism is UNDUE. We are well served by following MEDRS and relying on recent high-quality secondary reviews. If Leadwind has an independent source that covers Baron-Cohen, discussion of that would be appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, independent authoritative reliable secondary sources need to be used to identify the most noteworthy theories and cover how well-accepted they are. The article currently cites two articles by Baron-Cohen, both monographs, for his theories. This is in my view an inappropriate use of primary sourcing. The E-S article abstract says "A new theory, the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory, is summarized" and the assortative mating article abstract says "evidence is reviewed for autism being the genetic result of assortative mating of two high systemizers". Even though the articles are labeled "Reviews" in PubMed, if they're laying out new theories being proposed and argued by the author in the article, they can't be used as secondary sources for those theories. The Wikipedia article doesn't even attribute these theories in-line to Baron-Cohen and really needs to, if it's going to cover them at all using primary sources. I'm not sure who put those in the article and when but I'm uncomfortable with how they're being used. Zad68 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If SBC is a charlatan with a contentious theory, I'd be happy to write that onto his page and reflect it here. Two weeks ago, I didn't know who this fellow was, and I just like him because he sure seems like an expert. Maybe Sandy you can share links to those reports that you refer to. Since SBC's EMB theory reflects sex differences, that's bound to make him controversial among old-school blank slate proponents (by which I don't mean any WP editors). Is there more to the contention that that? We'd sure like to see it. If SBC turns out to be a charlatan, I'll eat all the nice words I said about him. We're are all about reflecting the views of the experts here, not our own agendas. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Zad, you're absolutely right that the text needs to attribute these theories to Baron-Cohen. I edited the text appropriately. I trust everyone will approve. Leadwind (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Empathizing–systemizing theory

PubMed has seven reviews on the topic. Curiously, every one of them is written by Simon Baron-Cohen. Could someone with journal access locate a review of his theories not written by SBC?

Alternately, here is the most recent, full-text review I could find that mentions sex-differentiation theories:

• PMID 23226953 2012

Autism affects males four times more than females,52 and the cause for this difference is not well understood. Several theories have been proposed, among which the involvement of the sex chromosome in the etiology of ASD, and the role of hormonal influences in utero (for review see ref 53). However, none of these theories has been confirmed yet. (citing SBC as the source, 53)

(That came from a PubMed search restricted to autism, free full-text, and review ... I have not searched further because there are gazillions of reviews and many reviews of many different theories ... confirming my conclusion that we should not give undue weight in this article to any one theory. Causes of autism would be where those could be explored, but again, based on independent sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my. On further follow-up, I see we once had a short, but clean article there, where we now have a mess. I see we have a similar mess at mind-blindness. Perhaps these discussions about these theories belong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

sex differences and ASD pages

Two weeks ago, I had no idea who Simon Baron-Cohen was, and now it looks like I'm his biggest champion. Weird. Here's what happened. I came to these pages innocently enough trying to learn the sex ratio of Asperger syndrome, and I was surprised to see this basic information left out of the lead. (Sandy was kind enough to add it at my request. Thanks, Sandy.) In looking at this page, at Asperger syndrome, and at Causes of autism, I saw more of the same. The sex bias is left out of the AS lead and touched on lightly in the body. As for SBC and his extreme male brain theory, it is repeatedly minimized. On this page and on Causes, the theory was undermined with OR (an unrelated article that in the editor's eyes, made EMB controversial.) On this page, the EMB theory is given vague treatment. For example, the text never explains why EMB replaced mindblindness as a current theory (e.g., what it explains that mindblindness fails to explain). EMB is not even in the "Causes" section of the page. It's under Mechanism, although the text never actually mentions a "mechanism." When I added a reference to a mechanism (fetal testosterone), it was removed within two hours (although the editor assures me that they have no problem with sex difference science, so that's apparently a separate issue). On Causes of Autism, the EMB theory is relegated to the "other in utero" section rather than getting its own section. In my recent investigations, I haven't some across any other theory as strongly supported as EMB, so it's weird that the favored theory of a prominent researcher and his team would be a side note. The E-S Theory page, where EMB is treated, features a long section criticizing the theory, and it's mostly OR.

We know that none of the current editors have an ax to grind when it comes to the science of sex differences, so all this bias against sex differences was either someone else's work or just inadvertent. Thanks for the help I've already gotten in setting this right. There's still more to do. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now reviewed every paper I have access to (others undoubtedly have better journal access than I do), and the only mention of Baron-Cohen's theories I have found is the one listed above.

• PMID 23226953 2012

Autism affects males four times more than females,52 and the cause for this difference is not well understood. Several theories have been proposed, among which the involvement of the sex chromosome in the etiology of ASD, and the role of hormonal influences in utero (for review see ref 53). However, none of these theories has been confirmed yet. (citing SBC as the source, 53)

Several of the reviews that I have do mention other studies of Baron-Cohen's in passing, but not the specific theories referenced in the last few weeks of discussion here. The absence of SBC in our article does not seem inadvertent; it appears to be respectful of WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. In fact, unless someone can provide independent sources discussing SBC's theories, based on the discussions here, at Talk:Asperger syndrome, Talk:Causes of autism, Talk:Empathizing–systemizing theory and at Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen, I am now concerned that we may be giving these theories undue weight in our articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now found another source (which can't really be used here, but can be used to search for secondary reviews).

• PMID 22173769

is a primary source study of sex differences in autism which refutes EMB (extreme male brain):

• "Our results provide the first empiric test of the predictions of the EMB theory at the level of brain structure. No evidence of hypermasculinization was found, indicating the previously described behavioral and neuroendocrine effects do not map onto anatomic features in a straightforward way." "These interactions indicate that the sex-related differences in neurotypical controls are attenuated or absent in AS participants. However, we did not find that individuals with AS have a more masculinized brain, as postulated in the core hypothesis of the EMB theory."

There is a good deal of information in this article, which indicates that it should be possible for Leadwind to locate a recent secondary review of the proposed text additions. I do not have free journal access: I cannot do the work for you, but this primary source might point you in the right direction or help you locate a secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Guideline and policy review

Leadwind, again, if you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that also meets WP:WIAFA, please provide it. We are discussing this now on five different article talk pages; I will attempt a summary once again:

1. We give theories weight according to independent reliable secondary sources (Simon Baron-Cohen is not independent on his own theories).
2. For medical text, WP:MEDRS in most instances prefers secondary journal reviews.
3. For Featured articles, sources must additionally conform with WP:WIAFA (high quality sources).
4. In sub-articles (like Causes of autism) we can explore in more depth individual theories, but in the broad overview main article, we take WP:UNDUE into account with respect to how much space to devote to any individual portion-- that is, length is a concern, and while the sub-article (causes) must still conform with relevant policies and guidelines, we can give more space there to exploring individual theories to the extent they are covered in sources that are compliant with our policies.

The relevant policies and guidelines have been explained now by several editors on several pages, so a review of WP:IDHT might also be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything on violence against autistic people

This seems like a major gap, one which deserves its own section on this page and quite possibly its own page. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources on prejudice against autistic people

I just saw this first one today, and figured we should start a section on the issues:

• http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2013/10/23/children-quick-judge/18831/ Ananiujitha (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a press report of one small study; please see our medical sourcing guidelines which call for secondary reviews, or in the case of a featuerd article, high quality, recent secondary reviews. I believe a secondary review for some text could probably be found; if you want to add the text, it is up to you to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Many of us don't have access to academic journals, so how would we find these sources? Ananiujitha (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example of the kinds of sources we would use to support any proposed text, here is text from our article Asperger syndrome (AS), which uses sources that are complaint with our medical sourcing policies. The four sources used in our AS article are all specific to Asperger's; if you want to add equivalent text relating to autism more generally, sources of this caliber should be searched for.

The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated, but is not supported by data.(PMID 17030291 PMID 17805955) More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers.(PMID 12512398) A 2008 review found that an overwhelming number of reported violent criminals with AS had coexisting psychiatric disorders such as schizoaffective disorder.(PMID 18449633)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

is this a good source for EMP?

This article (Evolutionary approaches to autism- an overview and integration ) from McGill looks pretty good to me as a source for information on Simon Baron-Cohen's extreme male brain theory. What do you folks think? Also, it seems that EMP is well-known [9]. The topic is contentious, but SBC's work is impressive [10]. Other researchers expand the theory to link it to schizotypy [11]. Anyway, my question is whether the McGill paper stands up to the high standards expected on this page. Leadwind (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I get a bit tired of people attacking who I am, as an autistic woman. Calling autism a disorder, or an effect of an 'extreme male brain,' definitely feels like a personal attack, and makes it harder for me to assess either the Wikipedia article or the linked pubmed article. Calling autism a 'lack of empathy,' given the multiple meanings of empathy, feels downright dehumanizing. As for specifics:

• I'm skeptical about the application of present sex-role stereotypes to all past societies.
• I'm not sure what the authors see as causes of differences in vagal nerve processes, or exactly what they see as the difference in the vagal nerve itself. If we accept these differences in the vagal nerve and in stress responses, that could explain digestive issues, which some autistic people have, but would it explain visual and auditory perception differences? or vestibular differences?
• I'm not sure what the epistatic theory is, beyond the idea that multiple genetic and epigenetic causes might interact.

As a non-expert on these theories: aside from the offensiveness, the article looks like a useable introduction to the first few theories, if not a complete explanation of them. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To include text here about various theories, according to our policy on due weight, please locate secondary overviews that discuss the place these theories have in autism research. What you have found is a review focused on that one aspect (which might find a place in the Causes sub-article, might not, since a "journal dedicated to advancing student science" doesn't inspire confidence ...) but for this article, please locate general secondary reviews that are relevant to the due weight we would give any individual theory. That paper isn't it. As for the journal's stated goal of promoting students' work, are we to take seriously a journal which would print something like, "For women, empathizing may have been more important because of mothering, making new friends (women used to marry into new groups), gossiping, and inferring the thoughts of a possible mate (to discover whether he is willing to invest in offspring). So having an extreme male brain, a condition which we strongly associate with autism, may have had practical advantages given demands of ancestral times." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetic causes

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia:

Hi Sandy, I am not particularly emotionally tied to the topic, but what struck me as incorrect materially was the following: Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by rare mutations, or by rare combinations of common genetic variants.[5] I check the reference and the most recent citation was from 2007 and much more information was draw from earlier than 2007. If you check the Mayo Clinic or another other reputable medical source, discredits this sentence. For instance check http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism/DS00348/DSECTION=causes or recent research http://www.health.harvard.edu/books/the-autism-revolution. It is misleading to write there is a strong genetic basis. The truth is the cause is unknown. Further under controversies, it would be more up-to-date to state there is actually quite a bit of consensus around environmental causes. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment. and of course you could cite the Lancet for the vaccines.

GMO should be included in the suggested causes. The correlation is quite convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchFrench99 (talk • contribs) 01:52, November 1, 2013‎

I am aware that some do not favour compiled research paper collections as thye may be used to present a personal preference. You may find some of the research articles included in my PubMed Autism ASD review paper collection of some interest, including some more recent reviews regarding genetics. dolfrog (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Mayo clinic is not a reliable source nor is "the autism revolution". Please read WP:MEDRS regarding what sort of sources we should be using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc the citations used in this article regarding most of the content are extremely dated, and requires a radical review. I came across these papers recently which may provide more detailed and research based insight regarding some of the genetic issues A genome-wide scan for common alleles affecting risk for autism. 2010 and Individual common variants exert weak effects on the risk for autism spectrum disorderspi, 2012. Obviously there are more recent related reviews. dolfrog (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dolfrog, I've got my hands pretty full and don't have time at the moment to take on the huge project that is needed here, but in addition to routine updates, we still have to address the issue of DSM5 (that is, what are we going to do about this article in relation to autism spectrum) so it's hard to know where to start. Do you want to begin proposing text with sources? The commentary from the editor above was off ... which doesn't mean we don't need to update-- I just don't have the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy I have noticed how busy you have been on various other articles in recent times. Unfortunately my copy editing / text composing skills are next to zero, due the the limitations imposed by the cause of my dyslexic symptom. Even creating this small contribution has taken quite sometime, due to my word recall (finding the right words) and sequencing issues. And as you are no doubt aware helping to run the UK support organisation for my own disability is quite time consuming. Which means i can always help provide the supporting citations or citations that can be used to update an article, but I am not really able to contribute any text. dolfrog (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... well, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your sources (I browsed them yesterday and found lots of good stuff), but I also have limitations, not only prose but access to sources not to mention how busy I am, and an even bigger concern about how we are to restructure the entire suite of articles to account for DSM5 ... and who and how to find the time to fix it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A Consensus review paper you may find of interest

I just came across this paper while researching another related topic, Consensus paper: pathological role of the cerebellum in autism 2012 which could be useful when updating the article dolfrog (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

sign so bot won't archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)