Strollerderby

Can Autism Be Diagnosed in Infancy?

Posted by KeriF

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, doctors should begin screening for autism by 18 months. Now some researchers are suggesting that signs of autism can be seen as early as 12 months.

Early warning signs include: not responding to one's name, not sharing interests through pointing and eye gaze, lack of joyful expression, an absence of babbling, difficulty establishing eye contact, and staring too long at inanimate objects. Researchers compiled this list by studying home videos of children with autism and their younger siblings, who have high rates of autism. 

At the Yale Child Study Center, researchers measure when toddlers stop blinking while watching a video; typical children will do so at scenes of emotion, while a child with autism will fixate on the opening and closing of a door. At Vanderbilt University, babys are shown a sealed jar of cookies, their reactions recorded and evaluated; typical children will seek the assistance of a caregiver through eye contact and gestures; a child with autism will repeatedly place the caregiver's hand on the jar but never make eye contact

These studies, along with others, were presented at a conference at Columbia University's Teachers College. The goal: to identify autism as early as possible so that intervention and assistance can begin as early as possible. 

Investigators stress that no one test or behavior alone is indicative of autism, and the goal is not to officially diagnose these children but rather to identify them as "at risk" and get them assistance as soon as possible. 

"The environment in the early years has an active role in shaping the brain," says Geraldine Dawson, chief scientific officier of the advocacy group Autism Speaks. "What we see in autism may be partly the result of not engaging with the social environment. So if you engage the baby through an intervention, you might prevent or at least reduce the development of autism symptoms."

Some studies aim to help children as young as eight months, such as one at the University of Washington funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dawson explains, "What we are doing is teaching the parents how to structure interactions to promote eye contact and babbling." The goal, she says, is to "begin before the full autism syndrome is present and prevent it from emerging."

Of course, not every baby that is slow to babble has autism. Which begs the question: does identifying these early warning signs truly help children? Or does it simply fuel parents' fears? 

Related Posts:

 

 

 


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

Crunchy Mama said:

Or you could just refuse to vaccinate your children and avoid autism pretty much altogether.

June 1, 2009 3:12 PM
 

Cathy Hale said:

Better to fuel the fear than delay a diagnosis. I'm always amazed when parents openly admit they think their youngster may have autism, but don't pursue a visit to a pediatric neurologist or speech therapist. What happened to the whole "better safe than sorry" train of thought? When it comes to autism, early intervention is key.

June 1, 2009 3:13 PM
 

Knitty said:

I think it's helpful.  There are several studies that show early treatment of autism leads to the best outcomes, and the earlier intervention begins the better.  I started suspecting something wasn't right with our daughter around 12 months when she wouldn't respond to her name or make eye contact with anyone other than me.  She began Early Intervention at 17 months and the other treatments a few months later when she received her official diagnosis of PDD-NOS.  I don't have time to go into all the progress that she's made since starting EI, speech/OT/etc, but suffice it to say that I never dreamed she'd have made as much progress as she has in just a few short months.

Even if a child who isn't on the spectrum is diagnosed incorrectly, the services that he/she would receive would do nothing but help in their development.  The downside is the *huge* amount of time, energy, and money that treatment of PDD-NOS requires.  Even with excellent insurance therapy for autism is expensive, especially if you factor in the fact that the program pretty much requires a parent to be at home during the day to coordinate therapies, supervise sessions, do floortime/DIR, drive from facility to facility, etc.

My biggest concern for an incorrectly diagnosed 12-month-old being treated for PDD-NOS is that there are a lot of opportunists out there selling useless or even harmful treatments.  I don't think many parents would jump directly from a diagnosis to, say, injections of Lupron, but I'm sure it happens.

June 1, 2009 3:24 PM
 

LauraLaura said:

"This is CrunchyMama, reporting from a cave stocked with survivalist supplies deep under northern Montana, sitting on my hand-whittled nursing stool, tinfoil hat firmly in place...."

June 1, 2009 5:05 PM
 

Knitty said:

Yeah, amazing how she can be a complete ass on any topic.  She's like a wind-up troll doll that spews stupid.

June 1, 2009 5:22 PM
 

Marj said:

Thanks for the lol LauraLaura.

I'm thinking of starting a Tinfoil Hat homebusiness.  There's no reason that protecting your brainwaves against secret government alien conspiracies should mean you must sacrifice your fashion sense.

June 1, 2009 5:24 PM
 

Donita said:

My daughter had no signs of autism until about age 2. We jumped on it pretty quickly and got early intervention and she's grown significantly.  Maybe we could have "caught" things sooner, but she showed no signs (as well as us being first time parents).  Sometimes I think if the doctor would have asked a couple more questions (digging alittle deeper), we could have gotten the ball rolling quicker.  Hind sight is always 20-20.  Isn't what this study is requesting what you should already be doing with your child anyway?  

June 1, 2009 6:37 PM
 

Crunchy Mama said:

Do you think if you're snide enough or scream loudly enough, the connection between autism and vaccines will somehow magically disappear?

While it is true that studies comparing vaccinated children with other vaccinated children found no differences in the rates of autism (duh!), studies that compare vaccinated children with UNvaccinated children demonstrate some pretty astonishing conclusions.

Jenny McCarthy's website www.generationrescue.org has some excellent information for people who are interested in making an informed choice.

But you all go back to your name-calling and sarcasm. It's so much more insightful. Not to mention intelligent!

June 1, 2009 8:53 PM
 

AutismSpeaks said:

Yes, quote the Playboy Bunny for us.  She's totally an expert; her medical degrees are impressive indeed.  Almost as impressive as you are.

Do you think that if you post enough stupidity here, we're going to change our minds?  Start ignoring scientific evidence and try on your tinfoil hat?  Not likely, troll.

June 1, 2009 9:34 PM
 

LauraLaura said:

"Do you think if you're snide enough or scream loudly enough, the connection between autism and vaccines will somehow magically disappear?"

It was magical to begin with, so, uh, yeah. Poof. Bye-bye. Have you never heard of double-blind controlled studies? No? Not surprised. Stick to your unicorns and rainbows.

June 1, 2009 10:57 PM
 

CV said:

Can we stop feeding the trolls please?  

One quotes the playboy bunny, who is all knowing.  The other, snarks at anyone who doesn't agree with the first.  Myself, I'll stick with science...from scientists, not playboy bunnies.  

I would like to know why the article that everyone depends upon, the one that was in the Lancet, that said there was a direct correlation...why was it not on the front page of every media outlet that the author of said study fudged the data?  The he used children who were already exhibiting signs of autism in his "study"?  

June 2, 2009 7:45 AM
 

Knitty said:

It was, CV.  There was a long article about it here and it was front-page news on MS-NBC, CNN, etc. when it was first published.  Still, there are people who will never accept it: parents who can't buy that there isn't anyone to blame for our children's condition and tinfoilers like the troll above.

June 2, 2009 9:29 AM
 

Crunchy Mama said:

A double blind study simply means (for example) that one set of children received vaccine containing thimerosal (mercury), while another set of children received vaccines that did not contain thimerosal, and neither the children or the researchers knew which group received which vaccine. That's why it's double blind.

But ALL the children received vaccines. And had equal rates of autism.

But when you compare children who do not receive vaccinations at all, the rates of autism are up to 300 times lower.

Why isn't a nationally funded study being carried out on UNvaccinated children? If there is no connection, what's the worry?

June 2, 2009 9:51 AM
 

CV said:

Knitty - it sure seems like it (the fact it was fudged) received far less press than it did the first time around.  

June 2, 2009 11:55 AM
 

Knitty said:

CV - You know, it probably did receive far less press just as all corrections to these sorts of studies do.  Remember that study from the 1990's claiming that a woman's chances of marrying after 40 were roughly the same as being killed by a terrorist?  And then the stats were examined and they were off by something like a magnitude of 1000?  The correction was hardly mentioned by the media, but people STILL quote the terrorist/40-year-old woman thing.  I suppose it seems to *me* like the information about the flawed autism-vaccination study was spread far and wide, but I spend a lot of time interacting with other parents of autistic children who are highly invested in this sort of news.

June 2, 2009 2:01 PM
 

Sheri said:

I thought I read somewhere that Evan (Jenny's son) wasn't even autistic.  

Crunchy, aren't you afraid of the computer????  You seem to be afraid of everything else.

June 2, 2009 10:53 PM
 

agrover said:

I thought that the link between autism and vaccines had been disproven by *both* sides of the debate. (?) )I am excluding any opinion expressed by Jenny McCarthy.)  I'm not trying to be snotty or feed trolls - I just thought that was the concensus nowadays.  (Too lazy/unconcerned to research)

June 4, 2009 12:26 PM
 

Matthew said:

The focus on vaccines is extremely dangerous. Clearly, if there is a link, it is extremely rare. Therefore, promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism AND the idea that autism is "worse than cancer" as one politician put it will have a very predictable, REAL WORLD consequence. Millions of parents will stupidly choose to avoid a very small risk of a disability by putting their children at a significant risk of childhood diseases that CAN KILL.

So Crunchy Mama, shut it.

June 5, 2009 12:50 PM

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage