Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

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: [1] The second study can be found here: [2]. 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. [3] 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 [4]. The topic is contentious, but SBC's work is impressive [5]. Other researchers expand the theory to link it to schizotypy [6]. 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)

Employment

Broad overview article, size concerns. Does this text belong here or at sociological and cultural aspects of autism? And is the source about autism or schizophrenia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a new area of research have a look at A Systematic Review of Vocational Interventions for Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorders dolfrog (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! Since that has free full text available, and is specific to autism, I suggest we use it instead of Cochrane. So, do we think some text about employment belongs in this article, or at sociological and cultural aspects of autism? The review concludes:

In the current review, individual studies of different on-the job supports reported increased rates of employment in the community relative to those without on-the-job supports; however, given the methodologic limits of such studies, the strength of evidence (confidence that future research will not change our understanding of the effect) for the effect seen is insufficient. Similarly, despite positive results related to other outcomes (ie, quality of life, autism symptoms, cognitive development) reported in individual studies, the poor quality of the studies, assessment of unique outcomes in each study, and lack of replication lead to insufficient strength of evidence until further studies are conducted that may confirm the observed effects. Research to quantify the degree to which these interventions are effective, under what specific circumstances, and for which individuals with ASD is critical for the growing number of adolescents and young adults with ASD who are approaching the transition to adulthood.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, I do think the information on employment prospects and potential intervention belongs here because it has to do with prognosis for a condition that impacts social skills. In addition, I added the Cochrane Review specifically in compliance with WP:MEDRS as this is a preferred source. There is no particular need to include free text articles, although as a user I appreciate being able to see the full reference myself. I think it's okay to add that but I don't see any reason to remove the Cochrane reference.Benutzer41 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It may belong here, but that is a matter for consensus, and if it does belong, it would be part of a section titled "Society and culture", per WP:MEDMOS (not as part of Prognosis).
2. Is that review specific to autism, because the title did not imply that and free full text is not available. The title is "Supported employment for adults with severe mental illness ... ".
3. The source Dolfrog supplied is not only recent, but a) specific to autism, and b) free full text is available, which is a service to our readers, that is more important than promoting Cochrane, as good as Cochrane may be.
4. The conclusions of the review Dolfrog found seem a bit at odds with the text you added sourced to Cochrane, so that will have to be sorted when we decide what to add and where.

There is no reason we must prefer Cochrane even if it is in compliance with MEDRS; that Cochrane provides high quality, recent secondary review is only one factor in the discussion. All other things being equal, we would prefer to offer a source to our readers they can access. Why do you believe a Cochrane survey on mental illness in general is superior to a specific autism survey, and how do we account for the differences in conclusions between the two? The review provided by Dolfrog seems to provide conclusions that would be more useful to our readers: a statement that job supports improves employment outcomes isn't ... well ... very useful. It's kind of "doh", while the review Dolfrog found gives us more to work with. Also, please review WP:OWN#Featured articles; it's always helpful to first discuss text on FAs, and please follow the citation style used here, since FAs must maintain consistent citations (WP:WIAFA, WP:CITEVAR). This article uses vcite journal, and includes PMIDs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I used Cochrane because of WP:MEDASSES, which states "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[2] Systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies.[3] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies; quasi-experimental studies; non-experimental, observational studies, such as cohort studies and case control studies, followed by cross-sectional studies (surveys), and other correlation studies such as ecological studies; and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience. Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources". That would make a Cochrane review of RCT or quasi-RCTs higher quality than a single study. Having said that, I have no objection to adding the free text citation from Dolfrog.

2.I did not consider this a significant change. However, as part of this discussion, I see that this content could be added to existing content following this sentence under "Management": "After childhood, key treatment issues include residential care, job training and placement, sexuality, social skills, and estate planning." or under Prognosis "A 2008 Canadian study of 48 young adults diagnosed with ASD as preschoolers found outcomes ranging through poor (46%), fair (32%), good (17%), and very good (4%); 56% of these young adults had been employed at some point during their lives, mostly in volunteer, sheltered or part-time work.[159] Changes in diagnostic practice and increased availability of effective early intervention make it unclear whether these findings can be generalized to recently diagnosed children." I had specifically added content which used more recent information and reviews instead of single studies. Since aspects of employment were already embedded in this article, it does not necessarily need to go under "Society and Culture". However, if consensus is to add that section to this article, I am happy to do so. What should it be? Embed in Management, Prognosis or start Society and Culture?

3. Check this out. Postsecondary employment experiences among young adults with an autism spectrum disorder at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972695.I think it is another good recent article to cite although free full text not available. I agree that the supported employment article from Cochrane, which does include reference to autism, is not nearly as good as one solely about autism, however I had already done the research on employment stats and selected that article as the highest quality. I think the review from Dolfrog is a good start. I am less concerned about research on supported employment than I am about the research on employment issues for people with autism and citing research indicating status of evidence on interventions.Benutzer41 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:MEDRS, together with WP:WIAFA in this case, calls for recent, high-quality, secondary reviews. Both Cochrane (from you) and A Systematic Review of Vocational Interventions for Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorders (from Dolfrog) are high-quality, recent secondary reviews.

But Dolfrog's is additionally freely available, and specific to autism, which (all other things being equal) makes it a better source.

The Cochrane review you supplied is PMID 24030739 and Dolfrog's is PMID 22926170. Referring to sources via PMID makes everything much eaiser :)

This page helps explain how to interpret and use MEDRS, and gives you more info about how to use PubMed and identifiers (PMIDs): Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

2. The information now in Management and Prognosis is about Management and Prognosis. Before deciding where to add text, it would be helpful to craft some useful text, preferably from Dolfrog's source, since the text that you had added from the Cochrane review didn't really add anything to the article. In a featured article, almost everything is significant :) Featured articles have to stay in compliance with What is a featured article. If you could take a moment to read the section just above this one, you'll see that everyone working on these articles is quite busy (and sometimes quite tired, as I am now). Several of us don't have time to compose and propose new text just this moment, but I suggest that composing a sentence of two from Dolfrog's source, and proposing it here on talk, will be the most useful avenue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

3. The link you gave goes nowhere (probably because you ran the sentence together which broke the link). I believe you meant PMID 23972695 ... which is not a secondary review, it is a primary source (non-MEDRS compliant). It is not a source we can use; it is a study which has not been reviewed by other sources. If you want to propose text, I suggest the best source is PMID 22926170. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Entire article is hateful and treats autism as a disease

I can't see where to even begin to address this. The language of "disorder," "cure,: "recovery," and so on all assume that our differences imply something wrong with us. Unfortunately, the neutral point of view policy doesn't explicitly address articles which are hateful to the minorities they are supposed to cover, except for articles about religious minorities. But to have an article about autism which only discusses the views of allistic people in the medical community, and doesn't discuss the experiences and views of autistic people about being autistic seems like a violation of the spirit of the policy. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We are following sources. There is no hate here, you are reading that into it I think. If you have sources bring them here please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM; please base your proposed revisions on reliable sources. I have shortened your section heading because it runs off the page; I hope you don't mind. It is unsightly to start adding multiple daughter articles to the hatnote, and if we add one, they can go on forever. I made this change;[7] what do others think? It reduces the hatnote to one article, which really is the one summarized here, and puts the other two links inline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I know there are special requirements for sources here. I don't know what they are. I don't have access to the resources I'd need to address this, either. It should be a basic principle that, when we have an article about a group of people, we should try to include material from the perspective of the group. Here we have one that is about us, without us. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is there is not a "Living with Autism" section wto include content about living with autism which would not require secondary medical research. The statement "There is no known cure" appears often which implies that there is no medical solution or treatment that can help those who have autism only phamacuticle knockout products. So if the article does not include a section about how those who have autism cope on a day to day basis, the article can not begin to claim its so called super Wikipedia rating, as it does not fully cover autism but only severs as a medical text book. dolfrog (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think talking about living with a disorder would most certainly require WP:MEDRS sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

More perspectives on characteristics?

Would it be possible to include more of autistic people's views in the characteristics section? [There is one part citing Temple Grandin] I know there are discussions of common issues and even alternate diagnostic criteria, although most of these discussions are in blogs, not reliable sources. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no secretaries here. This is the fourth request in a few hours by you and QuackGuru, whereby you expect someone else to look at sources and do the work. This is a Featured article. It has to conform to WP:WIAFA, that is, it must use high quality sources complaint with WP:MEDRS. We don't source anything just about anywhere to blogs, much less in a featured article. If you want to propose text, find the sources, read them, and propose text based on them. Otherwise, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Unless there is a journal published secondary review of her work, it is unlikely that anything from Temple Grandin will find its way in to this article, but find the source and propose it if you want it considered. The burden is on the person wanting to add text to provide the source, and all of our time will be much better spent here if, when you propose text, you do that because you have a high quality source that supports the text you want to add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? I have very little experience editing medical articles, I don't know where to begin or how to edit the section without disrupting the rest of the section. Of course I'm going to raise the issue on the talk page, and ask for advice, and try to work out what a better approach might be. I am trying to be helpful here! Ananiujitha (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi All, If you follow the link Autism and talent it will take you to the table of contents of a research journal special edition, which includes an article by Temple Grandin, as well as many other researchers. These articles could provide some reliable sources. dolfrog (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I've felt more than one autism-related article (though not necessarily this one) does not give equal weight to all perspectives for awhile now, though without the time and such to get on getting sources, I can't begin to tackle that sort of problem alone. There are books and such, though I'm not sure how reliable some of them are per Wikipedia's standards, having never gotten the chance to read them. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Most children, some children, self-determination

The article says: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future employment opportunities or self-determination[clarification needed].[28]" What does the source say about some children? Some children may lead very normal lives. A bit more clarification about "some children" will improve Autism#Prognosis. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The link was dead, so I googled, and found and linked a new one. The paper is long, I don't have time to read it, and that section was most likely written by Eubulides in 2007 or 8. From my preliminary scan of the text, if you want a source that verifies something like "some children may lead very normal lives", you might want to look elsewhere. I have not seen such a source for children with autism, but Dolfrog knows the literature well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The current text is about "Most children".[8] I think the paragraph should also say something about "Some children". That was my point. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I understood your point. The source does not discuss "some children" as far as I could tell based on a quick scan, and if you want to include a statement of the nature you describe, you will need to find a source. I don't think that one is it. I only scanned it, but that source seems very focused on QoL measures, with conclusions about those specific measures for "most" children, and nothing else that I saw on quick scan; hence unlikely to be where you might find what you're looking for. You are welcome to find sources that will support whatever you want to add: I don't have time to read that full report, but scanned it to let you know your search might be more fruitful elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy you might like to have a look at this journal special edition Discussion Meeting Issue ‘Autism and talent’ May 2009 and there are more I will have a look around and get back later dolfrog (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time, Dolfrog, and I'm not likely to for a long time. If people (like QuackG) want text added, they need to consult the sources themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I put in the "clarification needed," because I'm not sure what this means about lacking self-determination. Is this supposed to be due to being autistic or is this due to being denied self-determination [being institutionalized, being rendered dependent, etc.] for being autistic? Ananiujitha (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that without the addition qualifiers (of being institutionalized, etc) that it probably means exactly what it says. You are welcome to read the lengthy journal source that is linked that I've already told you I don't have time to read. Most of this text was written by a long-gone editor, so if you have questions about sources, look 'em up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Checking the article, the authors seem to mean that many autistic people are denied opportunities for self-determination. Also, I think exactly what it said was exactly unintelligible. Anyway, thanks. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest a better version?

• The current text reads: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future employment opportunities or self-determination."
• My text read: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future opportunities for employment or for self-determination."
• The citation is from here: http://kingwoodpsychology.com/recent_publications/camh_432.pdf

I find the current text unclear, and bordering on incoherent; it makes it sound like the lack of self-determination is simply part of autism, rather than part of how autistic people are treated by the rest of society; the source is clear that this is about how autistic people are treated. LaserBrain finds my text ungrammatical. I'm not sure of the grammatical differences between our respective branches of English, but we should try to find text which is clear and grammatical for as many readers as possible. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I had seen an unclear/incoherent passage in the article, marked it huh, asked about it on the talk page, above, checked the original source, and rewrote it so it would be clear. Laser Brain then reverted my edit, claiming mine was ungrammatical, when it was perfectly grammatical, and claiming mine had the same meaning, when the old text had no clear meaning. I restored my edit, and referred to the talk page. Laser Brain reverted my edit again, claiming that I was edit warring. I don't know exactly how you use that term here, but I think Laser Brain is making a series of bad edits for bad reasons. If anyone finds my edit ungrammatical, seeing as we can have different standards in different branches of the language, I am open to suggestions, but I want it to be clear, and the old version was/is unclear to the point of incoherence. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you're trying to place is: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future opportunities for employment or for self-determination." If you don't know why this is ungrammatical, you ought not be editing articles at all. I find your attitude unnecessarily antagonistic and your use of hyperbole in edit summaries ("trashed my perfectly good work") quite off-putting. Like I said, stop edit warring; you do not have consensus for these edits. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"I find your attitude unnecessarily antagonistic" I think you need to look at your own actions here. "Like I said, stop edit warring; you do not have consensus for these edits." What do you mean by edit warring? You have consistently reverted my good edits, you don't have consensus, and you are ignoring the existing talk page discussion. "If you don't know why this is ungrammatical, you ought not be editing articles at all." This is trolling, it is unnecessarily antagonistic, and it borders on baiting. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. So I should just stand by while you introduce grammatical errors into the article? I think not. Additionally, I see that your previous addition of the "huh" tag was reverted, and so you're edit warring on that front as well. Please remove that tag, as there is nothing unclear about that sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My text was grammatical in AmE, I don't know what branch it could possibly be ungrammatical in. Your text is completely incoherent. I thought the huh was deleted by mistake. I didn't realize that was deliberate and don't know the reason. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You tried to replace a simple serial list that had a proper conjunction with a mess that doesn't follow parallel construction and has an extraneous preposition. This isn't really the place for grammar lessons, however. You don't have consensus for your change, and you don't have consensus for that tag. Please remove it. If you reintroduce any other changes to this article after you've already been reverted, I'm going to report you for edit warring. --Laser brain (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all the items in the list were like each other, that's why it required clarification! What you want is no more grammatical and a good deal less clear. Without the second "for," how are people supposed to be sure that "self-determination" is in the "opportunities for" part of the list? Ananiujitha (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Offering an uninvolved opinion - I can understand both versions just fine. Ananiujitha, if you believe the original wording was incoherent, I believe this is a problem with your interpretation rather than with the text itself. Laser_brain (and others) - Ananiujitha's edit is also perfectly readable, and though it's wordier is not evidently horribly worse than the original. Getting nasty with him is not appropriate here.

I recommend and request everyone to calm down and talk it out here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Two

cite PMID|22786515

cite PMID|22250194

Here are two sources. I do not have any specific proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

On my browser, there's a whole lot of error markup from the formatting of your post above. It appears that you may be suggesting that the article should be updated to reflect newer reviews of social skills and parent training programs:

• PMID 22786515 (Cochrane review)
• PMID 22250194

It's not clear to me that our text is now at odds with these reviews, but yes-- please do update; this article hasn't been updated pretty much since its main author, User:Eubulides, left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Neuropsychology and causes sections

... are both in bad need of an update, to the extent that this article should not be featured. Most of what is there is based on research at least seven or eight years old, and doesn't reflect recent reviews (of which there are scores).

Curiously, for at least seven years, our Neuropsychology section has included text cited to primary research from Simon Baron-Cohen, rebutted by other primary research (in other words, original research. SBC's theories have not been widely accepted, and are given undue weight here.

For context, the following articles should be viewed:

• Buchen L (2011). "Scientists and autism: When geeks meet". Nature. 479 (7371): 25–7. doi:10.1038/479025a. PMID 22051657. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• PMID 22674640
• PMID 22369368
• PMID 23888834
• PMID 24381784

Without free full journal access, I can't update this article, but at minimum, hopefully someone with journal access will reduce/remove the dependence on primary research from Baron-Cohen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pushing genetics is not neutral.

Suggesting a strong link with genetics based on a review when original measured research is available indicating environmental causes is not fair to the topic.

It presents the favored view of the allopathic community over the view of parent where they can see results.

Not reporting or choosing not to investigate the reports of parents is not science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I also added sources. So what is your issue for reverting or starting an edit war on the topic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Iron deficiency study to be included in the causes

source

I would like this research to be included in the causes section.

If the user SandyGeorgia and Anthonyhcole would stop reverting the changes to promote their ideas of genetic causes.

So what do the users think ? Want to add real research or wish to stay with the reviews of research to promote the old hypothesises ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand your frustration. A few years ago as a new editor I experienced similar frustrations on this article, and it was here that User:Colin very patiently explained to me the Wikipedia rules that prevent us from adding primary research to overview articles like this. So I'll try to do the same for you.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:No original research (in particular but not only the section on Synthesis of published material that advances a position), in a nut shell.

The rationale is: Wikipedia would be even more hopelessly unreliable than it already is if we allowed anonymous non-experts, the researchers themselves or journalists to decide what research is and isn't promising or meaningful, or string primary sources together to propose novel or fringe hypotheses.

(For the record I'm very skeptical about any and all of the current popular etiology hypotheses and profoundly pissed off by the hubris of some of the more "prominent" media tart experts, and I believe current expert opinion gives far too much weight to genetics. But we have to reflect the current scholarly consensus.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The sample size is very small and even the study's authors aren't claiming it proves anything about iron deficiency and autism. —Soap— 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Paracetamol exposure and autism

I made an edit that cited the study "Prenatal and perinatal analgesic exposure and autism: an ecological link" and reverted. The revert mentioned that my edit cited a primary study. The "methods" section of the study indicates that this was a meta-analysis of studies extracted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the Prevention Summary of Autism/ASD Prevalence Studies database. Yobol, can you please explain? AuburnMagnolia (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is archival stuff, looking at correlational work, so really a primary study. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:RS/MC, the study I included is clearly a review and this is considered a reliable secondary source at Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia's content criteria was subjective. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a primary source [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the study in question takes raw epidemiological data (on autism prevalence and a number of other things) and performs statistical analyses on that raw data to identify correlations. It is a primary study because it is analyzing the raw data to draw conclusions. A meta-analysis, in contrast, would examine the results of several such studies (ideally based on independent sets of underlying epidemiological data) to determine if the correlations identified were robust.

Worth noting as well is a point the study's authors acknowledge right in the paper's abstract: "Like all ecological analyses, these data cannot provide strong evidence of causality." When all you have are whole-population statistics, you can sometimes be mislead by coincidences and confounding factors; correlation is not causation.

Consider a simplified hypothetical case, where in Country A, 66.7% of people have taken drug D, and 66.7% of people have developed disease X. The easiest leap to make is to the conclusion that oh-my-god drug D causes X! What you don't know is how much overlap there is between the group of people who took D and the group of people who developed X.

• It's possible that the drug D group is the same as the disease X group. That is, every person who took D developed X, and no one who didn't take D developed X—in which case you have a potentially interesting finding. (Though it could be that drug D is used to treat disease W, which sometimes progresses to disease X...in which case the perfect correlation with drug D is still spurious; W is what caused X, while D is incidental.)
• It's also possible that all the people who didn't take drug D (33.3% of the population) developed X, but only half the people who took D (another 33.3%) developed X. That gives you the same whole-populations numbers for fraction that took D and fraction that got X, but would have a wildly different interpretation.

In this study, we don't know how the populations that took paracetamol/acetaminophen overlap with the populations that developed autism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think causation is the issue here. My edit specifically referred to correlation. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree this is a primary study, and that its relevance and interpretation needs to be handled by a secondary source. Zad68 20:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at a number of sources including http://lib1.bmcc.cuny.edu/help/sources.html and even Wikipedia (e.g. Primary_sources and Secondary_source). These sources make it clear that research that analyzes and interprets research results are secondary sources. The study that I cited did not include original research of its own and conducted no experiment, survey, or clinical trial. The researchers studied existing research and data to draw new correlations: this is precisely the definition of a secondary source.

Furthermore, Wikipedia's own policy states: "A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary (or sometimes secondary) studies meeting explicit criteria to address a specific question. Such reviews should be more reliable and accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review". The source I cited is exactly that: "studies meeting explicit criteria to address a specific question". AuburnMagnolia (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

PMID 23656698 is a primary source. Data-mining databases in the investigation of a research question isn't synthesizing a conclusion from primary sources. Zad68 01:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source that corroborates your viewpoint? AuburnMagnolia (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN it is up to you to demonstrate it is. I'm just one of four editors here pointing out it's a primary source. Actually probably five as it appears Sandy agrees too. PubMed doesn't list it as any kind of secondary source, such as a literature review, a systematic review or meta-analysis. Zad68 02:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I did demonstrate this; please see my previous posts. You dismissed it with hand waving and "trust me". It seems that if you were right, you could prove me wrong easily. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) This can be a bit of a nuanced distinction; it can be difficult to distinguish primary and secondary sources if you're not used to working extensively with scientific literature. Two points to keep in mind are, first, that documents which draw on other primary sources are not automatically secondary sources. It is possible (and not at all unusual) for a primary publication – a piece of original research – to rely on other primary sources in order to carry out novel analyses of other researchers' data.

Second, a paper is not a meta-analysis if it is attempting to answer new or different research questions than the papers it cites. A meta-analysis looks at the results – the analyses and conclusions – of other papers that all addressed similar research questions, and attempts to assess how robust the answers to those questions are across different studies (or to identify possible reasons why different studies may reach different conclusions on similar questions). If – as in the case of the paracetamol/autism paper at hand here – the authors are using other sources' data to conduct a novel analysis that explores questions that aren't addressed in the original papers and databases, then they are conducting novel primary research—not a meta-analysis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong to use the term meta-analysis. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is also WP:UNDUE in a broad overview article; the topic is covered at Causes of autism#Paracetamol (acetaminophen). If you can produce a recent high-quality (WP:MEDRS) overview of autism in general that gives weight to the paracetamol theory, then it would be due weight to mention it here. Besides the significant limitations mentioned in the paper, the key words that preface the paper's conclusions are, In this hypothesis generating exploratory analysis. Giving a "hypothesis generating exploratory analysis" mention in a broad overview featured article would be undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, the evidence quality produced by this study is quite frankly really poor, and the study authors seem to know this. They use the phrase significant limitations three times in discussing their own results. If there were to be a primary source this article would use to cover this possible relationship, this study isn't it. Zad68 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The authors claim there are limitations in that type of study to make causal inference. It shows a strong correlation that is quite significant. SandyGeorgia makes a good point. You have been a bit rude and dismissive (see WP:BITE). AuburnMagnolia (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has been rude. People have been direct though. This is a primary study and it does not belong in the autism article. It is pretty simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AuburnMagnolia sorry if you've felt I've been rude, I feel like I've just been direct, as Dbrodbeck mentioned. In that primary study, the authors discuss three separate kinds of significant limitations, and not just about causal inference. You may feel that its results are significant, but the evaluation of its significance that you are making must be done by a secondary source, that's one of the main reasons secondary sources are used. Regardless, as you appear to agree that SandyGeorgia is making a good point, and Sandy's point is that the source must not be used per WP:UNDUE, it looks like everybody here including yourself is in agreement that the source should not be used in article and we can wrap this up. Zad68 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Planned Article: Autism in Developing Nations

I am a student at Rice University and I am planning on contributing a Wikipedia article on autism in developing nations. This contribution is planned in collaboration with my Human Development in Global and Local Communities course as part of my minor. Currently there is a wealth of information about autism in the West, but there is hardly any information about developmental disorders in developing nations at all on Wikipedia. I believe that leaving this information out of Wikipedia means ignoring a vast number of children in the world who have autism. The information in my article will help to equalize information presented about autism from a cursory Internet search by explaining that people with autism exist in more places than only westernized nations. Diagnosis, treatment, and perceptions about autism are very different in developing nations than in the west, and I plan on explaining these differences based on scholarly research. I will focus on different areas of development, including Africa, South America, and Asia. Finally, I will explain the challenges that researchers often face when studying autism in developing nations. Any input or suggestions will be extremely welcome as I embark on this project, especially since the Autism article is so well done. Allisonshields (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Autism prevalence

The lead section mentions that autism is as common as 1 in 50 children based on parent samples reported by the CDC. They say it was incentives made by the CDC for named diagnosis. However, a year before, a report made by the CDC reported 1 in 88 (based on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria which had not changed since 1994). One of the directors of the CDC stated in a CDC press release, "Unfortunately, 40 percent of the children in this study aren’t getting a diagnosis until after age 4..." See here: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0329_autism_disorder.html. The lead section should mention how it is hard to diagnose, and that the CDC prevalence rates use DSM IV-diagnosed kids which had not changed since 1994. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DSM revision and hatnote update

In May 2013 (last year), the DSM-IV revised to its current manual DSM 5 and has consolidated Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autism into one label: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). I think it's worth noting in the lead. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also the hatnote on top uses the word "pervasive developmental disorders" but it is no longer recognized as the diagnostic term for ASD. I think it needs to be revised. See here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ATC ^{. Talk} 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We already state "It is one of three recognized disorders in the autism spectrum (ASDs), the other two being Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified (commonly abbreviated as PDD-NOS), which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met." The DSM 5 is not that well accepted. We should state something about this at least in the classification section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. ATC ^{. Talk} 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)