Symptom heterogeneity has made researchers question the biological validity of the autism diagnosis. Autism in found with multiple gene variants, multiple brain dysfunctions, and many varied diagnostic and non-diagnostic symptoms. Current criteria for an autism diagnosis allow hundreds of patterns of persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, and hundreds of patterns of restricted and repetitive activities and interests.
Researchers have worked hard to limit autism heterogeneity. They have proposed: (1) tightening diagnostic criteria; (2) creating more stringent screening measures; (3) splitting autism into idiopathic and syndromic forms; (4) proposing new criteria that might unify autism; (5) creating larger frameworks into which autism may be placed; and, even (6) abandoning the autism diagnosis.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts to limit autism heterogeneity, no pathophysiology, no consistent diagnostic rubric, and no effective comprehensive behavior or drug treatment have been found.
At present, many researchers believe the autism diagnosis is likely to be a biological entity. Other researchers believe autism will be found to be a biological entity if the right unifying criteria for autism are used. Some few researchers believe the autism diagnosis is an impediment to the discovery of a myriad of neurodevelopmental disorders. And yet others believe that the biological unity of autism cannot be determined now because there are biological, cognitive and behavioral levels of explanation that have not been resolved.
The many different views mean that the field is in disarray. Exploring the competing views of the biological validity of autism will sharpen the bases for future research.
This Research Topic explores competing views of the biological validity of autism.
The papers in this Article Collection should each address some form of the question:
• Does the autism diagnosis identify a biological entity or not, or is its status not determinable now?
You may discuss research or outline a theory, or may critique an existing theory. You should argue your case as clearly and succinctly as possible, and provide evidence that supports your position. All papers will be edited by one of the three members of the editorial team for appropriateness, strength of evidence and clarity of writing.
Symptom heterogeneity has made researchers question the biological validity of the autism diagnosis. Autism in found with multiple gene variants, multiple brain dysfunctions, and many varied diagnostic and non-diagnostic symptoms. Current criteria for an autism diagnosis allow hundreds of patterns of persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, and hundreds of patterns of restricted and repetitive activities and interests.
Researchers have worked hard to limit autism heterogeneity. They have proposed: (1) tightening diagnostic criteria; (2) creating more stringent screening measures; (3) splitting autism into idiopathic and syndromic forms; (4) proposing new criteria that might unify autism; (5) creating larger frameworks into which autism may be placed; and, even (6) abandoning the autism diagnosis.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts to limit autism heterogeneity, no pathophysiology, no consistent diagnostic rubric, and no effective comprehensive behavior or drug treatment have been found.
At present, many researchers believe the autism diagnosis is likely to be a biological entity. Other researchers believe autism will be found to be a biological entity if the right unifying criteria for autism are used. Some few researchers believe the autism diagnosis is an impediment to the discovery of a myriad of neurodevelopmental disorders. And yet others believe that the biological unity of autism cannot be determined now because there are biological, cognitive and behavioral levels of explanation that have not been resolved.
The many different views mean that the field is in disarray. Exploring the competing views of the biological validity of autism will sharpen the bases for future research.
This Research Topic explores competing views of the biological validity of autism.
The papers in this Article Collection should each address some form of the question:
• Does the autism diagnosis identify a biological entity or not, or is its status not determinable now?
You may discuss research or outline a theory, or may critique an existing theory. You should argue your case as clearly and succinctly as possible, and provide evidence that supports your position. All papers will be edited by one of the three members of the editorial team for appropriateness, strength of evidence and clarity of writing.
