• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Retinal exam for ASD and ADHD?

Crossbreed

Neur-D Missionary ☝️
V.I.P Member
That would shut up the autism-deniers if it works.
The article said up to 27yo.

(I wonder if there is any correlation between ERG numbers & neurological processing speed...
full
)
 
Last edited:
So what if you have both ASD and ADHD, like a large percentile? Also many with one have the other and don't even realise.

Out of 226, only 15 had ADHD and 55 with ASD. The sample is far to small for it to hold any weight in my opinion.

Any previous damage to the eye could have an effect on testing also?
 
This kind of evidence (if correct) would say otherwise, but both would be evidence for different types of neuro-diversity.

If correct, would a correlation of 15 people with ADHD really be enough to convince you? We also must remember how big a percentile of people diagnosed are actually misdiagnosed. There are way to many variables in my opinion. You'd need a way bigger testing pool.

You said this would shut up the autism-deniers, what do you mean by that?
 

Crossbreed

Neur-D Missionary ☝️
V.I.P Member
If correct, would a correlation of 15 people with ADHD really be enough to convince you?
A test this small does not prove anything, but gives markers to look for in a bigger sample size.
You said this would shut up the autism-deniers, what do you mean by that?
If it proves to be an accurate diagnostic tool in a sufficiently large sample size, it will shut the mouths of ASD1-deniers. (ASD2/3 is usually less controversial.)
 
A test this small does not prove anything, but gives markers to look for in a bigger sample size.

If it proves to be an accurate diagnostic tool in a sufficiently large sample size, it will shut the mouths of ASD1-deniers. (ASD2/3 is usually less controversial.)

I'm not sure, I'll agree to disagree. Small tests are usually a waste of resources in my opinion. Much larger tests allow for much more accurate representation of findings. Though I guess it comes down to funding.

As for ASD 1/2/3, I've never understood why people need to break it down further. Autism is Autism, the more people try to break it down the more people try to differentiate between them and miss the fact that they're all the same thing.

Do you mean the people who are autistic but have managed to do well socially and live a working life, that theyre almost disregarded as being autistic? Or people don't take it as seriously and focus on the more intense cases? I'm just trying to understand what you ment by that.
 
Last edited:

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
As suggested, this is a preliminary finding that will hopefully stimulate others to do more specific studies. Statistically, the results seem to be more accurate for ASDs than ADHD, however it may be helpful to distinguish age, gender, and ASD 1, 2, or 3 in future studies.
 

Rasputin

ASD / Aspie
V.I.P Member
So what if you have both ASD and ADHD, like a large percentile? Also many with one have the other and don't even realise.

Out of 226, only 15 had ADHD and 55 with ASD. The sample is far to small for it to hold any weight in my opinion.

Any previous damage to the eye could have an effect on testing also?

That is a high percentage with either ASD or ADHD.. Nearly 25% with ASD.
 
That is a high percentage with either ASD or ADHD.. Nearly 25% with ASD.

I understand that, I guess I mean with smaller total test subjects, 226 in this case. The percentage, even though initially looks good, findings can still be inaccurate because of such a small sample.

There is a study called Spectrum10k which wants to study 10,000 autistic people in regards to genetics and environmental factors. Though it has been put on hold as people have some conflicting views on that.

"focus on autistic DNA has worried many autistic people. After all, autistic people have long been subject to eugenicist attempts to eliminate us, despite most of us wanting to be accepted."

While I completely understand that point of view and the reasoning for it, I don't believe that to be the purpose of the test. The psychiatrist behind the study also has a great book called 'The Pattern Seekers' which paints a different view on autism.

I've gone completely off on a tangent now so I do apologise. The point was, I feel studys of this kind of magnitude involving DNA will give us much more insight.
 

Rasputin

ASD / Aspie
V.I.P Member
I understand that, I guess I mean with smaller total test subjects, 226 in this case. The percentage, even though initially looks good, findings can still be inaccurate because of such a small sample.

There is a study called Spectrum10k which wants to study 10,000 autistic people in regards to genetics and environmental factors. Though it has been put on hold as people have some conflicting views on that.

"focus on autistic DNA has worried many autistic people. After all, autistic people have long been subject to eugenicist attempts to eliminate us, despite most of us wanting to be accepted."

While I completely understand that point of view and the reasoning for it, I don't believe that to be the purpose of the test. The psychiatrist behind the study also has a great book called 'The Pattern Seekers' which paints a different view on autism.

I've gone completely off on a tangent now so I do apologise. The point was, I feel studys of this kind of magnitude involving DNA will give us much more insight.

I completely agree. I was just surprised that a small sample captured so many autistic and ADHD people.
 

Crossbreed

Neur-D Missionary ☝️
V.I.P Member
As for ASD 1/2/3, I've never understood why people need to break it down further. Autism is Autism, the more people try to break it down the more people try to differentiate between them and miss the fact that they're all the same thing.
I believe that ASD2 & 3 is ASD1 with more severe co-morbid conditions.* Said co-morbids are not the ASD, but on top of it.
Uninjured ASD [that is 1] is an example of neuro-diversity (like intellectual giftedness and, possibly, ADHD).
The severe co-morbids of ASD2/3 are evidence of subsequent brain injury.
Do you mean the people who are autistic but have managed to do well socially and live a working life, that theyre almost disregarded as being autistic? Or people don't take it as seriously and focus on the more intense cases? I'm just trying to understand what you ment by that.
The uninitiated readily recognize ASD2 & 3 as autism, but not ASD1.

*Severity levels are based on how much support a person needs.
 

Rasputin

ASD / Aspie
V.I.P Member
I believe that ASD2 & 3 is ASD1 with more severe co-morbid conditions.* Said co-morbids are not the ASD, but on top of it.
Uninjured ASD [that is 1] is an example of neuro-diversity (like intellectual giftedness and, possibly, ADHD).
The severe co-morbids of ASD2/3 are evidence of subsequent brain injury.

The uninitiated readily recognize ASD2 & 3 as autism, but not ASD1.

*Severity levels are based on how much support a person needs.

I am in the ASD1 group with intelligence in the highly gifted range. I had social awkwardness and sensory input processing issues growing up, but I was able to cope and overcome these issues (except for insomnia and general anxiety) on my own. I agree with what you are saying.
 

Shaddock

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
well I´m careful, there were 100000000 times "autism cause, we finally found it" and most of times it was just wrong and fake news. and to be honest I don´t really care about that at all. equal what causes autism, I have my own opinion about my own autism and that´s well for me. also I find the autism test thats already exists as adequate.
 

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
well I´m careful, there were 100000000 times "autism cause, we finally found it" and most of times it was just wrong and fake news. and to be honest I don´t really care about that at all. equal what causes autism, I have my own opinion about my own autism and that´s well for me. also I find the autism test thats already exists as adequate.

I agree that a "healthy" bit of skepticism is needed when looking at any data. At this point, this is one study demonstrating a "possible" link or association with ASD and ADHD. As @Shaddock suggested, this certainly isn't the first, nor the last time this will happen. It may take another 10-20 years of studies to sort this specific topic out,...so no jumping to any conclusions is an appropriate response.

However, the current way of diagnosing ASDs does not appear as standardized as the DSM would suggest. Certainly, my diagnostic process was far more "intense" than others have described theirs. Furthermore, when it comes to the folks with an ASD-1, there certainly are individuals who consider this a "neurodiversity",...which for many of us, significantly minimizes the condition,...as many have significant symptomatology,...but with the intellect to create some "work arounds" and intermittently give the outward appearance of a neurotypical. People I know,...my own family, called it "a label",...which was quite hurtful. Many lay people consider the fields of psychology and psychiatry as "soft sciences",...not as legitimate as say, a medical doctor. That said, any time we can gather medical data specific to ASDs,...genetic, epigenetic, endocrine, imaging, EEG, these retinal studies,...whatever,...this can be quite helpful in distinguishing ASDs as a legitimate medical diagnosis, as well. Furthermore, also reduce the risk of misdiagnosis.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
That would shut up the autism-deniers if it works.

The article said up to 27yo.

(I wonder if there is any correlation between ERG numbers & neurological processing speed...
full
)
I didn't know there was such a thing as an autism denier. Are they also flat-earthers?
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
So what if you have both ASD and ADHD, like a large percentile? Also many with one have the other and don't even realise.

Out of 226, only 15 had ADHD and 55 with ASD. The sample is far to small for it to hold any weight in my opinion.

Any previous damage to the eye could have an effect on testing also?

According to authors, p<.001. That means the chances that you will find the same result based on mere coincidence would be less than 1 in a 1000. If the differences are clear enough you don't need massive numbers of subjects to get a strong indication of a relationship. Also they are looking for a potential indicator, not for a cause.

The sample was chosen so as to not have both traits together and also avoided people with eye damage. When you do a scientific study you want to keep the variables to a minimum. Learning how the two traits interact is an entirely different study. The original study was linked in the article but I'll post it below.

Discrete Wavelet Transform Analysis of the Electroretinogram in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

"Participants were excluded if there was a history of strabismus surgery, other syndromic or metabolic disorders, or if there was a history of brain injury. We excluded participants who had co-existing ASD and ADHD, ADD, or OCD."
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom