The article argues that the four‑fold increase in autism diagnoses since the 1990s reflects changing definitions (from 'infantile autism' to 'autism spectrum disorder'), more surveillance, and shifting incentives—not a real surge in incidence. Causes proposed for the 'rise' should co‑vary with the timeline; long‑standing exposures like MMR (1971) or acetaminophen don’t fit.
— This redirects policy and media debates away from speculative environmental culprits toward measurement, coding, and incentive design that shape recorded prevalence.
BeauHD
2025.10.08
86% relevant
The article points to DSM‑5’s 2013 inclusion of Asperger’s within ASD and quotes Dr. Eric Fombonne noting the drop in intellectual disability within ASD cases (from ~75% historically to ~33% now), supporting the view that rising prevalence reflects reclassification and awareness rather than new environmental causes.
2025.10.07
92% relevant
The article argues that rising autism prevalence reflects definitional changes (e.g., DSM‑III onward), clinician behavior, and ascertainment/mortality biases rather than a true surge—citing CDDS cohort data and the evolution from Kanner’s severe criteria to broader DSM categories.
2025.10.07
86% relevant
Cremieux Recueil and Emily Oster argue the bulk of the increase reflects diagnostic/awareness changes and identify biases in California DDS cohort data (adult retrospective ascertainment and mortality), directly echoing the diagnostic‑drift framing while noting heritability estimates of 65–90%.
BeauHD
2025.10.03
78% relevant
The study’s finding that age-at-diagnosis subgroups have different genetic profiles supports the view that ‘autism’ aggregates heterogeneous conditions and that measurement/diagnostic criteria shape observed prevalence and causal claims rather than a single underlying cause.
Matthew Yglesias
2025.09.25
100% relevant
Yglesias’s claim that 1992–2012 diagnostic growth outpaced any comparable change in MMR or acetaminophen exposure and his discussion of expanded ASD criteria and surveillance.
2025.05.27
62% relevant
The CDC ADDM series reports continued increases in identified ASD prevalence (now 32.2 per 1,000; 1 in 31), the very trend that this idea interprets as largely driven by diagnostic and measurement changes rather than a true surge in incidence.
2020.10.07
84% relevant
The Swedish twin cohorts (born 1982–2008) report very high and stable heritability for ASD diagnoses (0.88–0.97) across birth cohorts, implying secular environmental shifts are not driving increased ASD prevalence and supporting the view that measurement and diagnostic changes explain much of the rise.
2015.01.07
92% relevant
The JAMA Pediatrics study of 677,915 Danish births (1980–1991) estimates that 60% (33% from a 1994 criteria change and 42% from adding outpatient diagnoses in 1995) of the increase in autism prevalence is attributable to reporting practices, directly supporting the claim that much of the observed rise reflects diagnostic/reporting shifts rather than incidence.
2009.10.07
90% relevant
The paper analyzes California DDS records and estimates 26.4% (95% CI 16.25–36.48) of the autism increase is due to diagnostic change (notably MR→autism substitution) and shows higher odds of reclassification in years when diagnostic practices changed (OR ~1.55–1.82), aligning with the claim that much of the rise reflects definitional and surveillance shifts.
2002.06.07
92% relevant
Croen et al. (2002) found California autism prevalence rose from 5.8 to 14.9 per 10,000 births (1987–1994) while mental retardation without autism fell by a nearly equal amount, concluding improved detection and diagnostic substitution largely explain the increase—an early, concrete dataset supporting the diagnostic‑drift narrative.