Quelle: CDC-Daten und Statistiken zur Autismus-Spektrum-Störung, kombinierte Schätzungen des ADDM-Netzwerks für 8-jährige Kinder.
Methode: Ich habe die vom CDC identifizierten Prävalenzschätzungen von 2000 bis 2022 grafisch dargestellt. Der 4,8-fache Wert beträgt 32,2 pro 1.000 Kinder im Jahr 2022 geteilt durch 6,7 pro 1.000 Kinder im Jahr 2000.
Tools: HTML/CSS/SVG, mit Playwright in PNG gerendert.
Wichtige Einschränkung: Hierbei handelt es sich um eine identifizierte Prävalenz, nicht um eine einfache Zählung der Anzahl autistischer Kinder. Es kann Diagnose, Screening, Aufzeichnungen, Bewusstsein, Zugang und zugrunde liegende Prävalenz widerspiegeln.
Vollständige Anmerkungen: https://www.buddingfuturesaba.com/autism-prevalence-cdc-2000-2022
CDC-Quelle: https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html
Von zacktokar
14 Kommentare
Source: CDC Data and Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADDM Network combined estimates for 8-year-old children.
Method: I charted CDC identified prevalence estimates from 2000 to 2022. The 4.8x figure is 32.2 per 1,000 children in 2022 divided by 6.7 per 1,000 children in 2000.
Tools: HTML/CSS/SVG, rendered to PNG with Playwright.
Important limitation: this is identified prevalence, not a simple count of how many autistic children exist. It can reflect diagnosis, screening, records, awareness, access, and underlying prevalence.
Full notes: [https://www.buddingfuturesaba.com/autism-prevalence-cdc-2000-2022](https://www.buddingfuturesaba.com/autism-prevalence-cdc-2000-2022)
CDC source: [https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html)
3-5% is a common incidence for many human variations.
Just so it’s clear: most likely the diagnosis of ASD is increasing due to mild forms being more understood and identifiable.
Profound autism is growing at a slower rate. 1 in 4 people diagnosed with ASD have profound autism impacting cognitive functioning
just remember though that this does not prove that actual incidents of it are actually exploding in numbers. Just as the incidents of bacterial infections did not rapidly increase after the acceptance of germ theory of disease. we just recognised it as a thing. Historical and societal context is key.
For those interested in this trend, the book [Neurotribes](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22514020-neurotribes) is an excellent history of ‚Autism‘ as a diagnostic concept.
By knowing this history, you’ll see the way in which much of this change can be explained by changing definitions of what constitutes autism, increased access to the diagnosis, increased supports for those who receive a diagnosis, and decreased stigma around autism.
To what degree there has *also* been a true increase in the prevalence of autism is controversial. The causes of any true increase are even more controversial, but may include anything from older average parental age, ‚[assortative mating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating),‘ and others.
(EDIT: By ‚controversial‘ here I mean scientifically controversial; I just mean that these are not closed scientific questions.)
But two things are uncontroversial that sometimes come up: (1) Autism develops in a person *before birth*, so if there were any kind of environmental driver in addition to the known genetic drivers, it would have to be in utero, and (2) vaccines do not cause autism.
I wonder if part of this has to do with increased special education identification of ASD. I worked on a school district sped evaluation team, and the guidance around using ASD as an eligibility category certainly changed between 2014 and 2022. More kids were being considered for that eligibility category, especially younger kids (who previously could have been identified as Preschooler with Disability). More emphasis put on early identification and informing parents of warning signs could mean more diagnoses.
Lots of states also have (had) autism waivers for Medicaid, meaning a medical diagnosis would give access to Medicaid services for families who otherwise weren’t eligible for Medicaid. I’m sure that drove some families to get the diagnosis, especially kids with multiple disabilities
is there like a list of cases where better reporting or diagnosis might lead to the belief that the cases are actually rising, like this or SA rates in sweden
It also means much less now, before autism were for people with serious mental differences / disabilities, now autism based on relatively minor disabilities is all the rage
I’m trying to understand your y axis. The point marked as 6.7 does not appear to be at 6.7 on the axis, and the point at 32.2 is not at 32.2.
While OP has an impressive ammount of sourcing for the chart, as with many things on reddit, nothing this complex can be distilled to a bite-size conclusion.
The best reputable and accessible examination that I have found is here:
https://youtu.be/E-yaxqDsfgY?si=Lbhr2hib4t3vO5No
TL;DR: No shade to OPs plot points, however, these data are only just begining to be understood. Genitics are still a major component of Autism predictions, but we are just begining to understand the potential environmental impacts as isolates, as well as how better access to trained doctors are putting the thumb on diagnoses.
TL;DR TL;DR… get vacinated.
Are there any graphs depicting diagnoses by the year of birth? I would be curious to see how much the late identified bridge this gap.
What is the point of this other than having people draw the wrong conclusions from the chart?
Everyone in my powerlifting gym is autistic, so there’s that
Data is not beautiful in its appearance, and slightly misleading in its content.