First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 8:28 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #57

hhh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was more for the aesthetic of the sentence, but if you have a spectrum including 'normalcy' that is infinite width and infinite height, with x being ability (a combined measurement of communication ability, sensitivities, etc) and y being level of function, it is possible to include 'normalcy' as it is defined at the farthest top right corner. This could even have more dimensions to it, represented as 0-1 on each.…

This is wrong twice I'm afraid. First: a graph with two infinite dimensions doesn't have a top right point, it has a top right extent. Second: when graphing, you don't get to pick what the normal is. That's a property of the graph. It is not the (impossible) property you've described.

Post by hhh » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 8:49 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #57

hhh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was more for the aesthetic of the sentence, but if you have a spectrum including 'normalcy' that is infinite width and infinite height, with x being ability (a combined measurement of communication ability, sensitivities, etc) and y being level of function, it is possible to include 'normalcy' as it is defined at the farthest top right corner. This could even have more dimensions to it, represented as 0-1 on each.…

This is wrong twice I'm afraid. First: a graph with two infinite dimensions doesn't have a top right point, it has a top right extent. Second: when graphing, you don't get to pick what the normal is. That's a property of the graph. It is not the (impossible) property you've described.

Post by jklinger410 » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 9:30 PM UTC

jmcgough wrote: post #5

scythe wrote: post #4

Very surprising result. I don't think I've ever heard of a blood test for a mental disorder -- at least, not one that actually works.

Be careful about that kind of wording. I and friends who're on the spectrum don't consider it a "mental disorder". It's simply a physiological difference, one that theoretically can be tested for.

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

jklinger410 wrote: post #66

jmcgough wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful about that kind of wording. I and friends who're on the spectrum don't consider it a "mental disorder". It's simply a physiological difference, one that theoretically can be tested for.

Be careful about that kind of wording. Those of us with loved ones who have severe autism consider it a "mental disorder" and not simply a psychological difference. We'd really love for all of the "neurodivergent" people to have their own diagnosis.

Post by alexandercrohde » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #49

icegreentea2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 88% correct classification on a validation data set consisting of 154 patients diagnosed with ASD. Their validation dataset did not contain a "typically developing" population since there's only one dataset for that data and it was consumed in their model generation. Their training data resulted in a 5% misclassification rate of their controls - that is 5% of patients that were not diagnosed with ASD in current…

If you give the test to everyone, your results are: ~4.9% incorrectly diagnosed with autism (0.05 x .983) ~1.5% correctly diagnosed with autism (0.88 x 0.017) Thus, 76% of those diagnosed would be diagnosed incorrectly.