| Autor: |
Thompson L; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Lucy.Thompson@gnc.gu.se.; Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Lucy.Thompson@gnc.gu.se., Gillberg C; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.; Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK., Landberg S; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden., Kantzer AK; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden., Miniscalco C; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden., Barnevik Olsson M; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.; PRIMA Child and Adult Psychiatry, Stockholm, Sweden., Eriksson MA; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden., Fernell E; Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. |
| Abstrakt: |
Two community-based cohorts of children with autism spectrum disorder, examined using similar assessment protocols, were pooled (n = 301) and subdivided according to history of regression. Those with regression (n = 62), 20.5% of the combined cohort, were contrasted with those without regression (n = 241) at first assessment (age range 19-60 months) and at 2-year follow-up on a range of measures. The regression group was significantly more functionally impaired, with regard to intellectual function (p < .001), language development (p < .001), and to severity of autism (p < .01) at both T1 and T2. Only 14 (23.3%) had a clearly identified underlying etiology [24 (18.6%) in the non-regressive group]. There were no significant differences between those who had regressed 'from normal' and those who had regressed 'from low' functioning. |
