Birkan Tunç1,2,3, Juhi Pandey1,3, Tanya St John4, Shoba S Meera5, Jennifer E Maldarelli1, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum6, Heather C Hazlett7, Stephen R Dager8, Kelly N Botteron9, Jessica B Girault7, Robert C McKinstry10, Ragini Verma11, Jed T Elison12, John R Pruett9, Joseph Piven7, Annette M Estes4,13, Robert T Schultz1,2,3,14. 1. Center for Autism Research, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, India. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 7. The Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 8. Department of Radiology and Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 10. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 11. DiCIPHR (Diffusion and Connectomics in Precision Healthcare Research) Lab, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 12. Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 13. Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 14. Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic shifts at early ages may provide invaluable insights into the nature of separation between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and typical development. Recent conceptualizations of ASD suggest the condition is only fuzzily separated from non-ASD, with intermediate cases between the two. These intermediate cases may shift along a transition region over time, leading to apparent instability of diagnosis. METHODS: We used a cohort of children with high ASD risk, by virtue of having an older sibling with ASD, assessed at 24 months (N = 212) and 36 months (N = 191). We applied machine learning to empirically characterize the classification boundary between ASD and non-ASD, using variables quantifying developmental and adaptive skills. We computed the distance of children to the classification boundary. RESULTS: Children who switched diagnostic labels from 24 to 36 months, in both directions, (dynamic group) had intermediate phenotypic profiles. They were closer to the classification boundary compared to children who had stable diagnoses, both at 24 months (Cohen's d = .52) and at 36 months (d = .75). The magnitude of change in distance between the two time points was similar for the dynamic and stable groups (Cohen's d = .06), and diagnostic shifts were not associated with a large change. At the individual level, a few children in the dynamic group showed substantial change. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that a diagnostic shift was largely due to a slight movement within a transition region between ASD and non-ASD. This fact highlights the need for more vigilant surveillance and intervention strategies. Young children with intermediate phenotypes may have an increased susceptibility to gain or lose their diagnosis at later ages, calling attention to the inherently dynamic nature of early ASD diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic shifts at early ages may provide invaluable insights into the nature of separation between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and typical development. Recent conceptualizations of ASD suggest the condition is only fuzzily separated from non-ASD, with intermediate cases between the two. These intermediate cases may shift along a transition region over time, leading to apparent instability of diagnosis. METHODS: We used a cohort of children with high ASD risk, by virtue of having an older sibling with ASD, assessed at 24 months (N = 212) and 36 months (N = 191). We applied machine learning to empirically characterize the classification boundary between ASD and non-ASD, using variables quantifying developmental and adaptive skills. We computed the distance of children to the classification boundary. RESULTS: Children who switched diagnostic labels from 24 to 36 months, in both directions, (dynamic group) had intermediate phenotypic profiles. They were closer to the classification boundary compared to children who had stable diagnoses, both at 24 months (Cohen's d = .52) and at 36 months (d = .75). The magnitude of change in distance between the two time points was similar for the dynamic and stable groups (Cohen's d = .06), and diagnostic shifts were not associated with a large change. At the individual level, a few children in the dynamic group showed substantial change. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that a diagnostic shift was largely due to a slight movement within a transition region between ASD and non-ASD. This fact highlights the need for more vigilant surveillance and intervention strategies. Young children with intermediate phenotypes may have an increased susceptibility to gain or lose their diagnosis at later ages, calling attention to the inherently dynamic nature of early ASD diagnoses.
Authors: Katarzyna Chawarska; Frederick Shic; Suzanne Macari; Daniel J Campbell; Jessica Brian; Rebecca Landa; Ted Hutman; Charles A Nelson; Sally Ozonoff; Helen Tager-Flusberg; Gregory S Young; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Ira L Cohen; Tony Charman; Daniel S Messinger; Ami Klin; Scott Johnson; Susan Bryson Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Heather Cody Hazlett; Hongbin Gu; Robert C McKinstry; Dennis W W Shaw; Kelly N Botteron; Stephen R Dager; Martin Styner; Clement Vachet; Guido Gerig; Sarah J Paterson; Robert T Schultz; Annette M Estes; Alan C Evans; Joseph Piven Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Annette Estes; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Hongbin Gu; Tanya St John; Sarah Paterson; Jed T Elison; Heather Hazlett; Kelly Botteron; Stephen R Dager; Robert T Schultz; Penelope Kostopoulos; Alan Evans; Geraldine Dawson; Jordana Eliason; Shanna Alvarez; Joseph Piven Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Emily J H Jones; Teodora Gliga; Rachael Bedford; Tony Charman; Mark H Johnson Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Paul Whiteley; Ben Marlow; Ritika R Kapoor; Natasa Blagojevic-Stokic; Regina Sala Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 4.157