Familial Recurrence of Autism: Updates From the Baby Siblings Research Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is estimated to be ∼10 times higher in children with versus without an autistic sibling in population-based studies. Prospective studies of infant siblings have revealed even higher familial recurrence rates. In the current prospective longitudinal study, we provide updated estimates of familial ASD recurrence using a multinational database of infants with older autistic siblings. METHODS: Data were collated across 18 sites of the Baby Siblings Research Consortium, an international network studying the earliest manifestations of ASD. A total of 1605 infants with an older autistic sibling were followed from early in life to 3 years, when they were classified as ASD or non-ASD. Hierarchical generalized linear modeling, with site as a random effect, was used to examine predictors of recurrence in families and calculate likelihood ratios. RESULTS: A total of 20.2% of siblings developed ASD, which is not significantly higher than the previously reported rate of 18.7%. Male infant sex and >1 older affected sibling were significant predictors of familial recurrence. Proband sex also influenced recurrence rates, with siblings of female probands significantly more likely to develop ASD than siblings of male probands. Race and maternal education were also associated with recurrence in families. CONCLUSIONS: The familial recurrence rate of ASD, as measured in infant sibling studies, has not changed appreciably since previous estimates were made in 2011. Younger siblings of autistic children, particularly those who are male, have an affected female sibling, multiple affected siblings, or are impacted by social inequities, should be closely monitored and promptly referred for diagnostic evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".