The author proposes a simple, reproducible method to apportion the rise in autism diagnoses into true liability change versus diagnostic drift using a latent‑liability threshold model. By placing diagnosis rates on the probit scale and anchoring to symptom-score distributions, one can compute a liability‑only counterfactual and estimate each share.
— A clear, testable decomposition can resolve ‘autism epidemic’ claims and reorient policy, research, and media coverage toward causes supported by data rather than inference from raw diagnosis counts.
2026.01.05
95% relevant
The article advances the same central analytic move as this existing idea: separate changes in true underlying liability from diagnostic/ascertainment/registry drift. It cites CDDS time series, DSM diagnostic shifts, cohort survivorship and age‑of‑diagnosis issues — the exact components that the 'liability vs drift' decomposition recommends quantifying.
2026.01.05
92% relevant
Kling’s article centers precisely on whether rising autism counts reflect true changes in liability or diagnostic/ascertainment drift — the same decomposition the existing idea advocates; he cites Jill Escher’s CDDS counts and Cremieux’s mortality/undercount arguments as concrete data points that motivate that analytic split.
Rosie Lewis
2025.12.01
42% relevant
The author argues many behavioural diagnoses after adoption reflect prenatal injury (FASD) that is often misdiagnosed as ADHD/autism — a measurement and diagnostic‑drift issue analogous to decomposing apparent prevalence rises into true incidence versus ascertainment/diagnostic change.
Cremieux
2025.10.15
100% relevant
He applies the framework to Lundström et al. (2015) Swedish CATSS/NPR data (A‑TAC scores and registry diagnoses) and challenges others to show any liability‑driven increase.
2024.10.30
88% relevant
This article advances the same core empirical question: how much of the rise in autism diagnoses is genuine change in liability versus diagnostic/ascertainment drift. Escher argues for a large true increase using administrative series (California DDS) and international prevalence data, which directly engages the methodological decomposition proposed in the existing idea (probit/liability counterfactuals).
2017.01.04
80% relevant
The paper documents how diagnostic, ascertainment and exposure‑measurement issues complicate interpreting prevalence trends and risk associations, directly connecting to the proposal to decompose observed autism increases into true liability change versus diagnostic/ascertainment drift.
2006.09.04
85% relevant
The Reichenberg et al. paper provides empirical evidence that can be parsed into the 'liability' component (biological/genetic risk associated with paternal age) of any decomposition of rising autism diagnoses; it directly bears on the methods and questions posed by the existing idea about separating true incidence change from diagnostic/ascertainment drift.