5 ms·

Mothers of children with autism have ‘significantly different’ metabolite levels

21 points by rajnathani 6y ago

thewileyone 6y ago
Oh, don't tell them that. This will unleash several levels of DOOM on you.
- pwdisswordfish5 6y ago
  IDDQD, IDKFA and I'm in.
  - easyas101110110 6y ago
    IDSPISPOPD Edit: Why was this flagged? Is Doom offensive?
rich_sasha 6y ago
Very interesting. That said, sample size of 59...
- tinco 6y ago
  What does that sample size tell you?
  - martin_a 6y ago
    Sample size is an important metric in statistics. It defines how many people were tested/asked/whatever. Higher numbers are better because that levels out quirks that might have happened. Asking 59 people is obviously not a big sample size and therefore the results of this study are "not very reliable". To say it friendly.
    - Arnt 6y ago
      The sample size isn't a problem here, because it doesn't matter: Even a 59,000-person sample would not overcome the 2-5 year delay. And of course the researchers knew that. They weren't even trying to do what you imply. They weren't looking for reliably anything. Rather, they were looking for something interesting, along the lines of "are these interesting questions to pose in a much more expensive study that avoids the 2-5-year problem?"
      - notafraudster 6y ago
        Agreed with your push-back on the sample size thing being operative (this is a point I've made frequently on HN study threads), and agree that the primary design consideration is the post-"treatment" measurement of the outcome making it more likely that having an autistic kid changes metabolites than that having different metabolites influences chance of having an autistic kid. Still, even with contemporaneous measurement, my guess is that there'd be a very real selection issue here; a non-random subset of people who could receive an autism diagnosis do, and to the extent the confounders into diagnosis (one presumes all the standard SES/race/access to healthcare factors are confounders here) constitutes a selection on the dependent variable, even a contemporaneous sample would not generalize to the population of interest.
    - rich_sasha 6y ago
      I don't get the downvotes. It is nigh-impossible to conclude something from a tiny sample, other than it's worth looking at more. But there are tons of things worth looking at more, most of which come out to nothing. Covid produced so many small-sample "promising effect" papers, most of which came to nothing at all. It's not a critique of the study, either. You can't recruit tens of thousands of people for every little study. So to rephrase, the headline could read "we found a relationship that probably doesn't actually hold, but just might".
      - tinco 6y ago
        59 is not a tiny sample, they are being downvoted because they're demonstrating a lack of understanding of significance in statistics. The researchers conclude "Mothers of children with ASD have many significantly different metabolite levels compared to mothers of typically developing children at 2–5 years after birth." And they back that conclusion up by describing their analytical process. If GP wants to dispute this conclusion, then the GP should explain why their method is flawed.
teekert 6y ago
"Even though the study collected samples years after the births actually took place, study authors say these initial findings open the door toward many more questions." Many pregnant women I know do change their diet a lot when pregnant, either consciously of because of "urges". I wonder how that plays into this.
strogonoff 6y ago
The original study contains a much more legible (no pop-up ads for one) summary of results in its introduction: https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-020-02437-7 https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887...
ramraj07 6y ago
Did they account for stress? Did they account for potentially deliberate changes in the diet of the family because they want to put their kids on a special diet? Doesn't look like it so can't take thr results too seriously
irjustin 6y ago
The response "what were the levels at birth" is the only thing this article should be interested in. There are way too many factors to draw any meaningful conclusions especially at 59 participants at 2-5 years AFTER birth.
- jbob2000 6y ago
  Yes, especially since many families take on special diets as part of autism therapy.
haffi112 6y ago
This should not be a headline until reproduced.
acd 6y ago
There is a project called American Gut project which a crowd sourced project that collects information about different gut bacteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954204/pdf/mSystems.00031-18.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954204/pdf/mSy... You could try with Biogaia Gastrus Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly known as Lactobacillus reuteri) Gastrus (L. reuteri DSM 17938 and L. reuteri ATCC PTA 6475) https://www.biogaia.com/product-country/biogaia-gastrus-usa-4/ https://www.biogaia.com/product-country/biogaia-gastrus-usa-... Please search for autism and DSM 17938 and L. reuteri ATCC PTA 6475 Ie you offset the different gut bacteria metabolite with Probiotic good bacteria to try and change the biome to good. Link to article with mouse model of PTA 6475 and autism https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627318310092 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662731...
easyas101110110 6y ago
So vegetarianism, lots of b vitamins, folate, and blood tests?

21 points by rajnathani 6y ago

thewileyone 6y ago

Oh, don't tell them that. This will unleash several levels of DOOM on you.

pwdisswordfish5 6y ago
IDDQD, IDKFA and I'm in.
- easyas101110110 6y ago
  IDSPISPOPD Edit: Why was this flagged? Is Doom offensive?

rich_sasha 6y ago

Very interesting. That said, sample size of 59...

tinco 6y ago
What does that sample size tell you?
- martin_a 6y ago
  Sample size is an important metric in statistics. It defines how many people were tested/asked/whatever. Higher numbers are better because that levels out quirks that might have happened. Asking 59 people is obviously not a big sample size and therefore the results of this study are "not very reliable". To say it friendly.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    The sample size isn't a problem here, because it doesn't matter: Even a 59,000-person sample would not overcome the 2-5 year delay. And of course the researchers knew that. They weren't even trying to do what you imply. They weren't looking for reliably anything. Rather, they were looking for something interesting, along the lines of "are these interesting questions to pose in a much more expensive study that avoids the 2-5-year problem?"
    - notafraudster 6y ago
      Agreed with your push-back on the sample size thing being operative (this is a point I've made frequently on HN study threads), and agree that the primary design consideration is the post-"treatment" measurement of the outcome making it more likely that having an autistic kid changes metabolites than that having different metabolites influences chance of having an autistic kid. Still, even with contemporaneous measurement, my guess is that there'd be a very real selection issue here; a non-random subset of people who could receive an autism diagnosis do, and to the extent the confounders into diagnosis (one presumes all the standard SES/race/access to healthcare factors are confounders here) constitutes a selection on the dependent variable, even a contemporaneous sample would not generalize to the population of interest.
  - rich_sasha 6y ago
    I don't get the downvotes. It is nigh-impossible to conclude something from a tiny sample, other than it's worth looking at more. But there are tons of things worth looking at more, most of which come out to nothing. Covid produced so many small-sample "promising effect" papers, most of which came to nothing at all. It's not a critique of the study, either. You can't recruit tens of thousands of people for every little study. So to rephrase, the headline could read "we found a relationship that probably doesn't actually hold, but just might".
    - tinco 6y ago
      59 is not a tiny sample, they are being downvoted because they're demonstrating a lack of understanding of significance in statistics. The researchers conclude "Mothers of children with ASD have many significantly different metabolite levels compared to mothers of typically developing children at 2–5 years after birth." And they back that conclusion up by describing their analytical process. If GP wants to dispute this conclusion, then the GP should explain why their method is flawed.

teekert 6y ago

"Even though the study collected samples years after the births actually took place, study authors say these initial findings open the door toward many more questions." Many pregnant women I know do change their diet a lot when pregnant, either consciously of because of "urges". I wonder how that plays into this.

strogonoff 6y ago

The original study contains a much more legible (no pop-up ads for one) summary of results in its introduction: https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-020-02437-7 https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887...

ramraj07 6y ago

Did they account for stress? Did they account for potentially deliberate changes in the diet of the family because they want to put their kids on a special diet? Doesn't look like it so can't take thr results too seriously

irjustin 6y ago

The response "what were the levels at birth" is the only thing this article should be interested in. There are way too many factors to draw any meaningful conclusions especially at 59 participants at 2-5 years AFTER birth.

jbob2000 6y ago
Yes, especially since many families take on special diets as part of autism therapy.

haffi112 6y ago

This should not be a headline until reproduced.

acd 6y ago

There is a project called American Gut project which a crowd sourced project that collects information about different gut bacteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954204/pdf/mSystems.00031-18.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954204/pdf/mSy... You could try with Biogaia Gastrus Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly known as Lactobacillus reuteri) Gastrus (L. reuteri DSM 17938 and L. reuteri ATCC PTA 6475) https://www.biogaia.com/product-country/biogaia-gastrus-usa-4/ https://www.biogaia.com/product-country/biogaia-gastrus-usa-... Please search for autism and DSM 17938 and L. reuteri ATCC PTA 6475 Ie you offset the different gut bacteria metabolite with Probiotic good bacteria to try and change the biome to good. Link to article with mouse model of PTA 6475 and autism https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627318310092 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662731...

easyas101110110 6y ago

So vegetarianism, lots of b vitamins, folate, and blood tests?