Urine Test For Autism 228
An anonymous reader writes "Defining and diagnosing autism has been a controversial process — but may be a little less so now. Children with autism have a different chemical fingerprint in their urine than non-autistic children, according to new research. The difference stems from a previously documented difference in gut bacteria found in autistic individuals. The possibility of a simple pee test matters because currently, children are assessed for autism through a lengthy testing process that explores a child's social interaction, communication, and imaginative skills. Being able to identify the condition earlier and at a lower cost could leave more time and money for treatment."
Re:Labeling (Score:5, Informative)
I can't see this being of any benefit in the long term. The problem is, even if they -have- autism or other defects, labeling them will do nothing to have them overcome it and will lead the majority of them to make excuses to why they aren't productive members of society.
I really don't understand the western mentality of labeling everyone to try to "help". Which is going to make people want to get ahead in life? Being told "hey you have -insert mental disability here-" or "hey, your not doing to great in -insert school subject here-". One has people making excuses and the other just has them either not focus on that and focus on what they are good at or try harder.
Autism is a physical, biological disorder. It is a disease, not a mood. It isn't like you'll suddenly stop being autistic because you forgot you had it.
Early diagnosis gives you more time for treatment, which will actually help people become more functional individuals.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't perform mammograms or colonoscopy because you don't actually have any ill effects from the cancer until after you've been labelled?
By that logic, we should just stop running tests all-together, because we'd all be far healthier if we didn't have any labels.
Re:screening for young engineers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:screening for young engineers (Score:3, Informative)
We already have Ritalin (or alcohol) for that. Most of the really good engineers (of many stripes) I know are functionally autistic, ADD/ADDHD or high-functioning alcoholics.
Just to clarify... Ritalin=stimulant. Alcohol=depressant. They don't do the same kinds of things.
Re:screening for young engineers (Score:2, Informative)
What I'm saying is that we're using more and more labels to enforce a kind of chemical conformity. It's easier to medicate an imaginative and unruly child than it is to channel that energy. I'll bet if Richard Feynman (as an example) were a third-grader today, they'd be medicating him.
We need to avoid flouride and protect our precious bodily fluids!
Re:Labeling (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Labeling (Score:3, Informative)
Think of it this way - if you grew up, and throughout your elementary and even high school experience, you had skills and abilities that other people thought were bizarre, people always looked at you weird and you didn't know why, you had uncontrollable tics that other people just didn't, you were frustrated daily because you had a very difficult time controlling your own behaviors, and you constantly got in trouble because these behaviors were judged to be "bad."
Finding out "other people have this problem too, and here's what you can try to alleviate the symptoms" is important to help these people become "normal, productive members of society." Your assertion that diagnosis will "lead the majority of them to make excuses" is completely unfounded.
Re:screening for young engineers (Score:4, Informative)
Which just goes to show you how useless those little boxes are.
Sure, Ritalin is a stimulant, if you don't have ADHD. But if you do have ADHD, Ritalin acts more like a depressant. That's one of the differentiators between true ADHD and normal hyperactivity.
And yes, alcohol is technically a depressant, but unless you're living in a cave you know that alcohol can have effects that are very similar to those of stimulants.
Re:No link between gut bacteria and autism (Score:3, Informative)
Look harder: The story is about a test that can identify autism based on urine, because autistic kids have different bacteria in their gut than non-autistic kids. The link is to a summary of the retraction of the entire theory that autistic kids have different bacteria in the gut than non-autistic kids; the scientist who submitted that paper fabricated his results (as the link states).
Re:Cause or Effect or Clue? (Score:3, Informative)
Again, as mentioned upthread, this has nothing to do with a MEASURABLE difference in gut flora.
You are confusing two totally different stories.
Re:Cause or Effect or Clue? (Score:3, Informative)
That refers specifically to the link to vaccines, and Wakefield faked the intestinal data in his subjects, but there are still others who think that there is something to the gut symptom correlation.
Erikson et al (2005) http://www.springerlink.com/content/l13786n2151314t6/ [springerlink.com] looked at all the evidence and found lots of people looking at it, but the stuff that was published has a wide range in the level of scientific rigor.
If there is a correlation (and there really might be one), it's a whole lot more complicated than a simple cause-effect one.
Re:No link between gut bacteria and autism (Score:4, Informative)
But Wakefield has NOTHING at all to do with the fact that there is measurable differences in gut Flora.
Nobody, certainly not the story linked, or Lancet, challenges that finding.
The only part discredited is that vaccines caused the gut infections.
Two TOTALLY different findings, totally unrelated except for the word Autism, which cause the short attention span crowd to assume its the same thing.
Re:Diet? (Score:5, Informative)
Happily my access does cover it (link [acs.org] for anyone else who wants to try).
The statistics look...mediocre. There's enough there, I think, to make it an interesting avenue for research, but it's definitely not a 'urine test for autism' (to be fair, the paper doesn't claim that, the blog and the summary exaggerate it).
What differences there are are pretty minor, and only some of them are apparently significant between the autistic children and their siblings (as opposed to the unrelated controls). I'm not altogether happy that some of the controls are from a different location, although they have found that there is no significant difference between the two control subgroups, but it's still a bit dodgy. They're also using statistical methods I don't know ("Projection to latent structure discriminant analysis"). Finally, I don't see any evidence that they've done corrections for multiple tests, although some of their results are P < 0.001, which would probably withstand that.
All in all, it strikes me as a case of the Science News Cycle [phdcomics.com].
Disclaimer: I am a biologist, but in a very different field.
Re:screening for young engineers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:3 fluid ounces (Score:3, Informative)
Full Text (Score:3, Informative)