(Closed) Not TTC, but found this really interesting regarding Autism

posted 7 years ago in Babies
Post # 3
Member
2550 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: July 2011

Wow, that is amazing.  I’m glad @ least we are still curious and willing to research why.

Post # 4
Member
5547 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: December 2011

All the research is interesting for certain and usually just makes more questions! Though I will say a study of 13 is hardly a study. Hopefully people have moved past the falsified study about vaccines and autism.

It was interesting, I had a psych prof who did research in autism that supports the studies idea that autism is around much earlier than classicaly thought. They watched videos from diagnosed children with autism from when they were younger and there were already many, more subtle, signs of autism. But it is one of those “hindsight is 20/20” sort of things.

Post # 5
Member
43 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: December 2012

Definitely interesting, but I have to agree that a study of only 13 children really isn’t a study.

Post # 6
Member
7609 posts
Bumble Beekeeper

Sure it’s a small study, but VERY interesting.  Thanks for sharing.

Post # 7
Member
284 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: April 2012

@chasesgirl: Seconded! 13 is a pitifully small sample size for a scientific study. I get the reasons why they don’t have a lot to sample from, but I’m also trying to find the actual research that was published, because CNN is notorious for misrepresenting scientific studies for the sake of making a good story.

Post # 8
Member
290 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: December 2011

Depending on the statistical analysis, 13 really isn’t abnormally or pitifully small for a study like this. Considering that brains of children have to be available for study, it’s pretty impressive they got those together at all. I’d like to see the original paper, but the number alone doesn’t discredit it. 

Post # 9
Member
284 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: April 2012

@Opus: Yes, it’s impressive that they got even that many brains to study together, especially given the necessary specifications that must be met. However, it is soley a study to use as potential groundwork for future investigation. Their findings give hints on where research might want to be directed in the future, and that’s good, but it’s not conclusive either.

When you consider the breakdown of a comparison of a subgroup of 6 to a subgroup of 7, it becomes less impressive, and they are hopefully trying to expand this to verify results. By its very nature, science requires reproducibility, and a larger sample size is more apt to give a better idea on the consistency of evidence.

Not only that, when you analyze the two small groups separately, there’s only a limited amount of statistical analysis you can do on 6 or 7 brains at a time. (That can’t even give a decent curve fit, when appropriate.) And while it may not be out of the ordinary for a study of this nature to have this small of a sample size, that doesn’t mean it’s good.

13 may not be abnormally small, but I still stand by my claim of it being pitiful. As soon as people see a big correlation for a very small study (especially in neuroscience), the findings tend to get grossly inflated in a hurry, which has detriments of its own. For something as big as this, nobody needs to jump the gun.

Post # 10
Member
1317 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2010

Interesting article! Especially since I’m in the first trimester and just read about new nuerons forming in a baby update!

Post # 11
Member
921 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: July 2011

@Opus:Ditto.   Very interesting, thanks for posting!  And… the way they got the participants, I’m glad there aren’t that many.

Post # 12
Member
2425 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

Interesting article, but definitely needs to be repeated on a larger number. But the study that claimed vaccines caused autism was debunked a while ago, and the doctor in charge of it has been criminally prosecuted for fraud I believe. So it’s just urban legend these days.

Post # 13
Member
9824 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper

Very interesting… I’m interested to see more developments. Amittedly it would make me feel someone better to know Dirty Delete was born autistic, as I’ve been torturing myself wondering what I did. I am trying not to stress about it this pregnancy… I wish there was more info available so they could tell parents like me what to do!

Post # 14
Member
1766 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: April 2011

This is a long shot but… Don’t the increase in autism and the recommendation to increase the folic acid intake when TTC and pregnant coincide a bit?

Folic acid helps developing the brain and preventing anencephaly (absence of part of the brain). Autistic children seem to have more brain cells than other children. Maybe there is such a thing as too much folic acid.

This seems like really weird coincidence. I hope they will do more research in this area.

Post # 15
Member
9824 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper

@AprilJo2011: That theory has been floating around for years, but I have never seen anything that backs it up. Hopefully this study will help them narrow down some theories.

Post # 16
Member
6597 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: August 2010

I just did a quick pubmed search on this author and this is not the only study he has down in this area.

The abstracts I read are fascinating. I don’t have time today to read the full articles but this study is just a sample of the work that is currently going on in this area!

The topic ‘Not TTC, but found this really interesting regarding Autism’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors