I would call this study a limited data-point, rather than a conclusion.

Personally I'm more concerned with the definition of autism itself, which is so incredibly broad that it actually defies most generalisations. For any given symptom or characteristic there may be an autistic cohort in a vastly different part of the spectrum to whom it patently does not apply.

It's because the definition of autism isn't a collection of traits or symptoms; it's essentially defined by how other people experience you as opposed to how you experience the world, and there happens to be a lot of comorbidities, so to speak

The problem is, people love to take limited data points and turn them into conclusions.