N=32 and

> We want to start creating a developmental story and start understanding whether the things that we’re seeing are the root of autism or a neurological consequence of having had autism your whole life

▲

jmward01 a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah, how many studies are done a year? Random chance is the #1 explanation with that small of a sample size. It doesn't take a degree in stats say that the next thing that needs to be done is to replicate the study a few times before making any claims or searching for any publicity. This subject is so emotional for the families involved that publicizing without more confirmation is a bit irresponsible especially if it is easy to do follow-up studies.

▲

jfengel 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Follow-up studies cost money, and you don't get any of that if you don't publish.

	▲	jmward01 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. Publish, but don't publicize. My remarks were aimed at the article, not the paper. This sounds like a promising, very initial, study that needs a lot more data before making claims about having found anything. Qualified headlines like 'Early study hints at..' Or 'Initial research potentially shows a promising....' would be better but even then a study with this little data should be very cautiously approached by any type of science reporting. More than mentioning it in passing as promising is probably not warranted until the n value is a lot higher and involves other teams and other methods.

▲

slashdave a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a university press release. Hyperbole in practice.

Wish I could read the paper.

▲

robwwilliams 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The reduction of mGluR5 was reported 10 years ago in postmortem tissue.

doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2015.05.009