Michelle Dawson posts

Post published on Bluesky on 15 Nov 2024 12:30

Bluesky DOI work crossref Extract quoted in the post Question asked by Dawson in the post External link integrated into the post Autism terms

"Frank autism" in autistic, LAD ("loss of autism diagnosis") & typical 12-39 yr-olds? molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.... for 33% of autistics "clinicians...did not have an initial impression of autism"? "LAD individuals are indistinguishable from their NT peers on initial impression"?

View on Bluesky

Structured cited links

1 cited resource

DOI work Fetched Post crossref

Rebecca R. Canale, Caroline Larson, Rebecca P. Thomas, Marianne Barton, Deborah Fein, Inge-Marie Eigsti (2024). Investigating frank autism: clinician initial impressions and autism characteristics. Molecular Autism, 15(1), 48-48. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Publication date
13 Nov 2024
Identifier
10.1186/s13229-024-00627-z
Authors
Rebecca R. Canale, Caroline Larson, Rebecca P. Thomas, Marianne Barton, Deborah Fein, Inge-Marie Eigsti
Source
Molecular Autism
Details
15(1), 48-48
Reference type
article
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Metadata source
crossref

Abstract

BACKGROUND: "Frank autism," recognizable through the first minutes of an interaction, describes a behavioral presentation of a subset of autistic individuals that is closely tied to social communication challenges, and may be linked to so-called "prototypical autism." To date, there is no research on frank autism presentations of autistic adolescents and young adults, nor individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in childhood who do not meet diagnostic criteria during or after adolescence (loss of autism diagnosis, LAD). In addition, there are currently no data on the factors that drive frank autism impressions in these adolescent groups. METHODS: This study quantifies initial impressions of autistic characteristics in 24 autistic, 24 LAD and 26 neurotypical (NT) individuals ages 12 to 39 years. Graduate student and expert clinicians completed five-minute impressions, rated confidence in their own impressions, and scored the atypicality of behaviors associated with impressions; impressions were compared with current gold-standard diagnostic outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, clinicians' impressions within the first five minutes generally matched current gold-standard diagnostic status (clinical best estimate), were highly correlated with ADOS-2 CSS, and were driven primarily by prosodic and facial cues. However, this brief observation did not detect autism in all cases. While clinicians noted some subclinical atypicalities in the LAD group, impressions of the LAD and NT groups were similar. LIMITATIONS: The brief observations in this study were conducted during clinical research, including some semi-structured assessments. While results suggest overall concordance between initial impressions and diagnoses following more thorough evaluation, findings may not generalize to less structured, informal contexts. In addition, our sample was demographically homogeneous and comprised only speaking autistic participants. They were also unmatched for sex, with more females in the non-autistic group. Future studies should recruit samples that are diverse in demographic variables and ability level to replicate these findings and explore their implications. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide insights into the behavioral characteristics that contribute to the diagnosis of adolescents and young adults and may help inform diagnostic decision making in the wake of an increase in the demand for autism evaluations later than childhood. They also substantiate claims of an absence of apparent autistic characteristics in individuals who have lost the diagnosis.

Study authors in this cited reference