Question about autism versus autistic traits

[Matthias]

I found this online:

"The presence of autism-related traits has been well documented in undiagnosed family members of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The most common finding is mild impairments in social and communication skills that are similar to those shown by individuals with autism, but exhibited to a lesser degree. Termed the broader autism phenotype (BAP), these traits suggest a genetic liability for autism-related traits in families." The Broader Autism Phenotype and Its Implications on the Etiology and Treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders

Suppose a genetic test for the BAP became available, and the following situation occurred:

Two siblings test positive for the BAP at birth.
No difference between them was noted during their first year of life.
An evaluation of both siblings at 3 years old found only one of them had ASD
At 20 years old, the sibling with ASD no longer met the criteria for ASD
A second evaluation of both siblings when they were 20 years old found they had the same autistic traits that are part of the BAP with no difference between them

How would you classify the sibling who was diagnosed with ASD?

 

[menander]

If it was not autism, maybe something happened. COuld be abuse or maybe one twin got into an environmental issue the other did not. Maybe the one that came out first was exposed to more of the mother's microbiome. Maybe in the womb, one was hit with something the other was not. Twins are not always in the exact same place all the time. They are born apart and sometimes it's several minutes. In bacteria world, minutes matter. But realy good questions. I appreciate your posting it.

 

[Tom]

I don't believe it is possible to be 'formerly autistic'. Either the person wasn't autistic to begin with or has developed coping skills to mask the symptoms. The underlying genetic code remains.

 

[Fino]

I'm so confused, how can both of these be true?

"An evaluation found both twins had the same autistic traits that are part of the BAP with no difference between them"

"An evaluation of both twins at 3 years old found that only one of them had ASD"

 

[Matthias]

I'm so confused, how can both of these be true?

"An evaluation found both twins had the same autistic traits that are part of the BAP with no difference between them"

"An evaluation of both twins at 3 years old found that only one of them had ASD"

I wrote it in chronological order. The second evaluation after the person no longer met the criteria for ASD found no difference.

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

- there isn't a hard and fast border between autistic and non-autistic traits and between having ASC and not having ASC. The different assessments (which strike me as perfectly feasible) simply describe varying traits at varying times (some of which in fact refer to both good and bad adaptations)

- there isn't a single BAP, but many interacting ones

- for me, my self-diagnosis, followed by write-ups from educationalists, meant me opening doors for myself (with willing acceptance from my employers & doctor at the time)

- above all this means accepting & treasuring thoughtfulness as my own core territory (no matter how badly disliked by the world)

 

[Gracey]

Two siblings test positive for the BAP at birth.
No difference between them was noted during their first year of life.
An evaluation of both siblings at 3 years old found only one of them had ASD
?

I suspect only one of them met the criteria being used at the time.

Both BAP but only one ASD suggests to me it's the criteria being used that separates the twins, not their genetics.

I'm going to guess; ASD being a spectrum and all,

the twin displaying 'milder' traits didn't meet the criteria set down by a gang of 'the knowledgable' in the field of Autism at that time.

In fifteen years time and after much research, results and understanding,
the criteria used for those twins will have changed.

Testing them at three years using the 'future' criteria may have produced different results?

 

[Thinx]

Processes of diagnosis change over time according to progress in research and in society. 70 years ago, homosexuality was diagnosable and treated with hormones in the UK. Gay sex was illegal. Now it's understood not to be any kind of illness or condition meriting diagnosis, just a difference in how we can be. People who were historically imprisoned received a pardon and apology, posthumous for many unfortunately.

Currently diagnosis in this area is behavioural.
Let's wait and see where they get to with genetic research, and how society changes too, in relation to the current diagnostic processes and status around what we currently call the autistic spectrum.

 

[SDRSpark]

I was told "You have traits of Asperger's but you're too high functioning for a diagnosis."

At first I thought that was a brush off. Now I think it's likely that this psychologist thought the label would be more harmful than helpful (she was wrong about that, but I suspect that was her intent.) It's also true that I wasn't able to properly explain some of the issues I have, because I didn't understand them myself. So the issues surrounding that are two-fold.

However it's extremely obvious that I'm autistic. To the point that I was largely stereotypical as a child. The main reason I wasn't diagnosed was that it was the 90s and they weren't looking for it then, especially in girls.

My point is, whether or not you get a diagnosis of ASD often has more to do with not only the criteria being used, but also the inclinations of the evaluator, than it does whether or not you actually have ASD.

In the scenario presented, both twins are likely autistic, although they mask well and likely one better than the other. And if they weren't evaluated by the same person, there's that variable as well.