Out of curiosity, what leads us to treat ASD as an actual single disorder, as opposed to a billion different individual neurological profiles?

I'd expect one of the things that makes this difficult, too, is that there's a missing component of the "machine" - the genetics affect the pathways, which affect (maybe?) things like signal propagation or network regulation in the brain, but the actual effect of that is on the patient's experience of consciousness, and it's difficult for someone to get more than N=1 of those via commonly accepted legal methods - otherwise, we're all just looking at the outside of the box and saying "huh, this box acts differently than that box, weird."

▲

SubiculumCode an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of the behaviors by which autism is diagnosed (social communication, repetitive behaviors and restricted interests) are fairly high-level behaviors, dependent on a lot of cognitive/neural machinery beneath it. There is an idea out there that convergent behaviors that allow consistent diagnosis depends on this, as the resulting behaviors might results from differences in many different underlying processes, but the result at the higher level can be measured the same.

Analogy: Two programs can produce nearly identical behavior at the UI level, but be implemented very differently. Diagnosis operates partly at the "interface" level, but what happens underneath can differ greatly.

	▲	sublinear 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Is high-level behavior the only criteria for diagnosis? I think the majority of the public would like to better understand how we came into this position. There's nothing wrong with the topic of autism as research, but it's been a political football for so long that there are many reasonable doubts about methodology, diagnosis, and relevance to everyday healthcare. I understand there may be complications with some patients that require medical diagnosis and intervention, but does that not imply there should be a much more meaningful label on those cases than just the broad umbrella term of "autism"? On one extreme, we have people thinking they're autistic when they're actually just awkward and inexperienced in life. On the other, we have people with epilepsy who prefer the label "autism" even though they're merely correlated. Something is wrong here. Not with the science, but the discussion.

▲

imzadi 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like your initial question can be applied to a lot of things. For instance, Elher Danlos Syndrome has 13 variations depending on which gene is mutated. This include 11 known mutations and 2 catch-all categories for variations where we haven't yet found the mutation. Why are all these mutations under the same disease when they have such a range of symptoms? My guess is that it is because they were all lumped together before we had the language to talk about them as separate things or the technology to identify the causes. Going back and saying oh all these people don't have ASD or EDS or whatever but this specific thing that we have now identified might cause some disruption is research and awareness.

▲

Alex3917 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> what leads us to treat ASD as an actual single disorder, as opposed to a billion different individual neurological profiles?

We already do treat it as the latter. The medical definition of autism is basically just any neurodevelopmental disorder that isn’t ADHD.

	▲	reubn 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What a ridiculous take.