3 ms·

Autism isn't my field. But the Autism epidemiologists I've spoken to all think that in addition to those two trends ((1) better coverage, and (2) Shifting diagn

Autism isn't my field. But the Autism epidemiologists I've spoken to all think that in addition to those two trends ((1) better coverage, and (2) Shifting diagnostic baseline) there is still a underlying increase in symptom frequency and severity.

XorNot 13y ago
This is something I'd really want to see numbers on though, and not just a feeling, because those two issues are two of the biggest ways that humans - being poor statisticians - draw incorrect conclusions.
- tdaltonc 13y ago
  Actually this is exactly the kind of thing that I humbly defer to experts on. A dataset and a few hours in R couldn't get you to the truth of this question. It would take me a couple of years to figure out for myself if there is an underlying increase in the rate. I'd have to talk to a lot of doctors, personally deliver the diagnostic exams, get a feel for why this or that measure might disagree, etc. If you go looking I'm sure that you could find datasets and papers that purport to prove any possible conclusion. There are people who have earnestly done those years of inquiry, and I'm inclined to trust them.
fecak 13y ago
It has gone from 1:150 to 1:68 over about 10 years, and another study from last year (1) had the rate at 1:50. Saying that an increase this dramatic is based on changing diagnostic criteria and awareness seems disingenuous, and intended not to alarm the public. 1 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports-1-in-50-American-Children-Diagnosed-wi.aspx http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports...
- tdaltonc 13y ago
  The sort of academics I'm talking about don't think about whether or not they'll alarm the public. They don't think of the public as their audience. Thier audience is other academics, and all that they care about is making conservative conclusions based on data.
  - fecak 13y ago
    And the people who deliver data (the CDC in this case) clearly are highly concerned about alarming the public. The single word "However" in the bullet point here (http://www.cdc.gov/media/DPK/2014/dpk-autism.html http://www.cdc.gov/media/DPK/2014/dpk-autism.html) is a fairly obvious indicator of the CDC's agenda not to cause concern even with these high numbers, as it infers that the problem isn't as bad as it used to be (because IQs are higher). That the CDC chose to frame the data in this way is troubling.

XorNot 13y ago

This is something I'd really want to see numbers on though, and not just a feeling, because those two issues are two of the biggest ways that humans - being poor statisticians - draw incorrect conclusions.

tdaltonc 13y ago
Actually this is exactly the kind of thing that I humbly defer to experts on. A dataset and a few hours in R couldn't get you to the truth of this question. It would take me a couple of years to figure out for myself if there is an underlying increase in the rate. I'd have to talk to a lot of doctors, personally deliver the diagnostic exams, get a feel for why this or that measure might disagree, etc. If you go looking I'm sure that you could find datasets and papers that purport to prove any possible conclusion. There are people who have earnestly done those years of inquiry, and I'm inclined to trust them.

fecak 13y ago

It has gone from 1:150 to 1:68 over about 10 years, and another study from last year (1) had the rate at 1:50. Saying that an increase this dramatic is based on changing diagnostic criteria and awareness seems disingenuous, and intended not to alarm the public. 1 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports-1-in-50-American-Children-Diagnosed-wi.aspx http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports...

tdaltonc 13y ago
The sort of academics I'm talking about don't think about whether or not they'll alarm the public. They don't think of the public as their audience. Thier audience is other academics, and all that they care about is making conservative conclusions based on data.
- fecak 13y ago
  And the people who deliver data (the CDC in this case) clearly are highly concerned about alarming the public. The single word "However" in the bullet point here (http://www.cdc.gov/media/DPK/2014/dpk-autism.html http://www.cdc.gov/media/DPK/2014/dpk-autism.html) is a fairly obvious indicator of the CDC's agenda not to cause concern even with these high numbers, as it infers that the problem isn't as bad as it used to be (because IQs are higher). That the CDC chose to frame the data in this way is troubling.