A company is selling a test to detect early signs of autism at home.
For $200, parents receive an iPod-like device to attach to their 12 to 24-month toddler and record what they say for 12 hours. The data is then shipped back for analysis, where “acoustic algorithms . . . compare the child’s vocalizations to those of other children.” The interpretation is then mailed to parents, who presumably would discuss them with a pediatrician.
Autism can be diagnosed as early as 2 years of age, which is 3 years earlier than average. If the test is accurate, it can help start the child on a course of early treatment. But such results, without appropriate guidance and support to the parents, can lead to unnecessary anxiety.
An appropriate comparison is made with home-based genetic testing. Results of these tests can have significant, and sometimes devastating, emotional impact on patients. That’s why they should not be relied upon by itself, and really needs to be interpreted in conjunction with a medical team.
Indeed, with potential cases of autism, “not all parents are emotionally able to handle the results of diagnosis,” and, “a lot of parents really go crazy; they will get back a report about their child’s autism and go nuts.”
Use on your own with caution.
Related posts:
- Vaccines do not cause autism in children, whether or not they have inborn errors of metabolism
- Vaccines and autism: The last word
- Screening for autism
- When you’re falsely accused in a shotgun lawsuit
- Should you try genetic testing at home?
- A possible reason for the rise in autism
- Autism or disease mongering?
{ 9 comments }
This is ghastly. Words fail me. Except – how about a device that tests parents’ gullibility – yours for $99 + $499 for the results.
dumb
dumb
dumb
If if an accurate earlier diagnosis is even possible, there are no good treatments. True, forms of therapy may help a little, but need for this should be assessed during routine well child visits.
As an autism researcher, there is no possible way that this condition can be detected accurately with just an audio sampling. So much of what makes the diagnosis of autism, includes eye contact, shared experiences, repetitive behaviors (not just vocal), insistence on sameness (again, not just vocal), etc. that it would be impossible to extract meaningful clinical data from just an audio sample. An additional caveat is that many speech and language disorders could produce false positives on such a test, leading to further misdiagnosis of autism and under-diagnosis of other conditions.
Is this real or something from the Onion?
G-d, is all you med people do is turf protect? Early intervention is good for autism. Giving people tools to id problems and get help is good.
The one downside: false positives. Well, that’s a problem that does go away once you see a professional.
As for “anxiety,” doctors really don’t seem all that concerned about it when they delay/forget to relay test results to patients. Being sick or possibly being sick is by definition anxiety inducing. Why is “anxiety” only a concern when its remedies cut into doctors’ pocket books?
I agree with skeptikus. Seems like a turf war to me. I have never had a medical provider show any acknowledgment to anxiety produced by waiting for a diagnosis.
If one were to take the time to go to the website of the LENA Foundation, one would see that studies have been conducted to show the research behind the devise. Perhaps if one wanted to make an argument on the devise’s inability to detect autism, finding flaws in their research method may be a better choice.
A terrible idea. It is extremely difficult to diagnose a 2 year old for autism. An ipod type device for sounds will yield meaningless results, as Greg suggests . Professionals have a tough enough time diagnosing autism and at 2 years old,this device will yield virtually meaningless results.
Let’s face it. In most average size cities, there is hardly anyone qualified to diagnose autism accurately. One finds day care providers suggesting the autism possibility, teachers are suggesting it, and so on. Pretty soon your garbage man will be suggesting autism.
We do not need more false positives.
You certainly have to have a sense of humor to be a physician these days.
A “non-profit” company is selling a technological device supported by their own studies and when a few physicians cite concerns about utility and efficacy they are immediately accused of protecting their turf and acting out of financial motivation. God forbid we assume they are acting out of a genuine concern for their own patients and the patient population at large.
Replace “non-profit” with “drug company” and suddenly you’d see the same paranoids accusing physicians of trying to drum up business by using a poor test with high false positives based on bad data “sponsored by the drug company.”
Since ad hominem attacks is the way things are done around here: I think “buckeye surgeon” must be scared of losing out on all the surgical procedures he would have done if this wonderful device was not available. That’s the only reason he would be mocking such a wonderful scientific advancement. I bet he’s not even a real buckeye. Probably roots for Michigan.
I’ve actually seen the data that suggests this device can accurately detect ASDs. Though I’m interested to see what eventually come out of the peer review process, I believe the deficiencies in verbal behavior that are picked up may correlate with other more standardized tools. That said, I’m also not excited about the use of such a device as a home testing kit. The best means of coming to a diagnosis is through sound developmental screening. By the way, I don’t think a pediatrician is the person for this job either. A screening (the MCHAT for instance) done by a ped should lead them to refer the child suspected of an ASD for evaluation by a developmental specialist.
Comments on this entry are closed.