Do you prefer the DSM-5 classification of ASD?

Post Reply New Topic

If not, why?

Not really. I used to have my own disorder, now I'm incorporated into a "spectrum" where other people may be touching my eigenvalues.

Yes.

Very much so yes! I feel like theDSM 5 did a great job!

ASD categories help me better.

My concern is simply semantic. The use of the phrase "persistent deficits" in section A seems to me to be more rigid and expectant of a quantifiability of the "social communication and social interaction" behaviors than the DSM-IV use of the phrase "qualitative impairment" for the same behaviors. In other words, I like the DSM-5 criteria (especially its severity scale) better, but shifting the criteria from qualitative to quantitative seems to me to be a dramatic change.

The Aspergers distinction, requiring no language delays and IQ of 75 iirc were kind of arbitrary in separating form other "high-functioning" autistics, so I do support the change. That said, I still use Aspergers as a sociological term.

The DSM 5 seems less likely to result in misdiagnosis and also promotes accuracy in diagnosis of adults due to progression towards the actual characteristics rather than resulting traits (i.e. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level), that NTs can display, and those with AS sometimes may not (adults with strategies).

IMO the lacking of persistent in the DSM IV could have result in people mistakenly applying the social AS traits to themselves based on few social blunders that they have made in their lives, rather than the consistent social misunderstanding that comes with AS.

They probably removed qualitative due to necessitating the clinically significant nature of the symptoms. There seems to be some redundancy there. That would be my best guess at least.

I wonder what the DSM 6 will be like.

I don't love either version however prefer the 4 over the 5, I think there is a place for Asperger's Syndrome on the spectrum as per the DSM as there is an extremely large divide between the ends of the spectrum and calling it all the same thing fails to properly represent those on it. I also find the new functioning levels confusing, which in the end do the same thing that different labels did, divide the spectrum only in a new and more confusing way. New evidence has proven their to be differences between the brains of those diagnosed with AS and autistic disorder so as research continues I see the DSM having to go back at some point.

I've always wondered about research that shows that.. would the brain have differences because of a different disorder, or simply the differing interactions with the world? Experience can have larger effects on various wirings of the brain than most care to imagine.

Also perhaps such areas are just those involved with the known differences between LFA and HFA, such as those involved with language.

I feel the same way.
Technically speaking (coming from a psychology/neuroscience major who’s also researching autism), there really hasn't been enough neuroscience research on the biological basis of autism yet to be making claims about it. Not only that, but there’s just way too many unanswered questions about autism in general to be making claims about it. (Other disorders, like schizophrenia, for example, have known about brain differences and have hypothesized causes for years now. It’s sad how autism doesn’t seem to get as much research!) So even if studies have found differences between AS and autism, future studies may find contradictory evidence. We just don’t know right now, and personally, I think that confusion is partially attributed to the DSM-IV not specifying the differences between autism (especially high functioning) and AS.

But it doesn't really matter when you think about it. Most disorders seem to be on some type of “spectrum.” To use OCD as an example, brain scans have revealed that biologically speaking, there are different "types" of OCD that vary depending on the symptoms that are presented. So two people with OCD aren't likely to have the same (or I suppose even similar) brain scan results unless they have the same "type" (symptoms) of OCD. And that’s not even factoring in severity of symptoms, since the study I’m talking about is new as well. But even so, those brain scan differences don’t change the fact that OCD is OCD, even if symptoms are presented differently and/or at different severity levels. It’s really no different than the spectrum of symptoms and severity levels that we’re well aware of can be displayed in autism.

So that research you mentioned actually proves the DSM-V view that autism is a spectrum (I know it was seen as a spectrum before DSM-V too, but the DSM-V defines it more clearly) where we all share certain traits, yet we also exhibit them differently in multiple ways, and thus deserves to fall under one official diagnosis. The DSM-V and the whole spectrum idea thing is still new, so you've gotta give it some time, you know? With most people (who are obviously uninformed) having equated every autistic person has being low functioning or exhibiting extreme meltdowns in public, of course those of us on the higher end of the spectrum are going to find it kind odd and wonder where we fit in. Overall though, I think it's unlikely that this change will be reverted since it was made because of the point that was already brought up - the diagnoses really weren't all that consistent in the first place as they were essentially useless. (The schizophrenia subtypes were actually removed from the DSM with the DSM-V for the same reason.) And I know that many people are against "functioning labels" because they don't feel like one label can define them completely - which is likely true, but there's really no way around them diagnostically speaking. Not only are they necessary for diagnostic purposes, but also for support purposes. That's not to say that changes can't be made to maybe cover the differences seen in those of us on the spectrum. For example, I personally believe specifiers such as "ASD with Asperger's traits" would be more useful. Maybe we'll see some of those in the DSM-VI or perhaps even a DSM-V revision. There are some other disorders I can think of that need more specific ones too... ASPD definitely needs some type of "ASPD with psychopathic traits" specifier because people tend to automatically equate the personality disorder with being a "sociopath" or "psychopath", which isn't necessarily true, so I'd say the DSM could definitely be more specific with those types of things in the future.

Also, for those who are interested but haven't yet heard, apparently there may be a link between brain inflammation and autism. I found this out yesterday while I was on my school's website (it's pretty big on autism research). Here's the link. I think it's pretty interesting. I definitely consider myself as having an overactive immune system (I was always sick as a child) and perhaps this will help further more research on the genetic basis of autism since autoimmune disorders/diseases do tend to be genetic.

32 minutes ago Delete post



I think the DSM IV was mistaken in originally creating a completely separate diagnosis for Aspergers instead of having Aspergers as a subcategory of Autism.

Gillberg Aspergers Criteria

I agree with what you wrote here and elsewhere that the instead of fixing the DSM IV Asperger’s diagnostic criteria by replacing it with something like the more accurate Gillberg criteria, the DSM did the cowardly thing and dropped Aspergers completely.

As a colloquial and not a diagnostic term Aspergers is whatever the most passionate well spoken of the general public wants it to be. The parents of severely autistic children and the Aspergers is next step in human evolution people while disagreeing about most everything else have created ad hoc definition of Aspies as socially awkward people with 120+IQ. Those of us with under 120 IQ, and the speech and the motor coordination issues Gillberg emphasized, while more resembling Hans Aspergers subjects do not fit in with the current stereotype of Aspergers.

Aspergers and Aspie were very positive terms that gave many a sense of identity and thus were helpful. A few people overacted and became Aspie supremacists. Somehow the attitudes of a few have become associated with most. First on the outside then in large sections of the community began associating Aspie with a number of negative traits, (over diagnosed, looking down on more severely affected, excuse for rude behavior or to get benefits). I wonder if Aspie has became too tarnished a term to be salvaged by the DSM bringing the diagnosis back. Sad and harmful

Right now the DSM 5 criteria is to broad to be useful and leaves things just as just as much if not more to clinician bias as the DSM IV

Yes. I don't think there's a meaningful difference between autism and AS, so the distinction seemed arbitrary and I'm glad it is gone.

I think DSM 5 ASD is a necessary transitional framework as knowledge increases. As specific etiologies are discovered for subgroups within ASD, they will eventually get named conditions.

It seems likely to me that along with some clear patterns relating to SNPs that effect small numbers of people, some larger clusters within the ASD population will emerge and that there will be an echo of classic autism and aspergers in that, with plenty of overlap at the edges. But these groups will be more understood in terms of the interplay of genotype and environment than by phenotype as the old system was. I expect there will be objective tests with quantifiable measurements leading to new differential diagnosis among newly named conditions.

Yes. I have been diagnosed three separate times since the mid-1990s, with Asperger's Syndrome, High-Functioning Autism, and Autism Spectrum Disorder (in that order). Through it all, I have preferred simply "autistic." I don't like separating myself from other autistic people via a label. Besides which, Asperger's has unfortunately become something of a joke lately, and I don't want to align myself with a diagnosis people don't take seriously. It never felt right anyway since a lot of people who profess to have it are socially awkward but don't have the other autistic traits I have, like sensory overload, stimming, and meltdowns. It gives people an inaccurate picture because of that public image.

An interesting story today about a study just published in Nature Neuroscience:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-d ... comes.html
The actual study, if you have access:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vao ... .3907.html

I think this and related work now underway tends to support the idea that the DSM 5 defined spectrum is a temporary point on a rapidly changing framework and new labels will emerge as specific etiologies become clear.