Study confirms link between older mothers, autism

[cory777]

Source: AFP

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, February 8th, 2010 -- 12:44 pm

Women over 40 are nearly twice as likely to give birth to an autistic child than a mother under 30, researchers said Monday in a study that found more evidence of links between autism and maternal age.

The father's age had nearly no impact on the child's risk of autism unless the father is older and the mother is younger than 30, according to the 10-year study, which examined 4.9 million births in the 1990s.

"This study challenges a current theory in autism epidemiology that identifies the father's age as a key factor in increasing the risk of having a child with autism," said study lead author Janie Shelton.

She and her fellow University of California, Davis researchers examined data from all births in their state for a decade.

The study, published in the February issue of the journal Autism Research, found that the incremental risk of having an autistic child increased by nearly a fifth -- 18 percent -- for every five-year increase in the mother's age.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/study-confirms-link-older-mothers-autism/

[customerserviceguy]

1. No doubt this will be opposed

by the 'vaccines' crowd. This study, if verified by further research, would tend to confirm a genetic cause, rather than a 'find someone with deep pockets' cause...

[mzmolly]

25. Frankly the thought process has been that both genetics

and environment play a role.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Correlation Does not Mean Causality

Could be that less-social people have kids later in life, and those kids are even less social.

[shraby]

3. When my sis-in-law was in nursing school, they were

taught that in having a child after the age of 30 the chance of having something wrong with it increased every year. When women started putting career first and starting a family later in life in the 1970's is when we saw a large jump in children with autism, so maybe this study has merits.

[Darth_Kitten]

7. I've heard that the younger the father is, the higher the rate of autism?

Hmm, who knows anymore? :shrug:

Women have been having children over 30 since the beginning of time. Actually, older parents are more likely to be better established and able to raise happy, healthy, secure children than many younger parents. Women over 40 who have children are 4 times more likely to live to be 100 than women who do not.

It's only our society that seems to look for problems.

[mzmolly]

26. I've also heard that older fathers have an increased risk of having schizophrenic

children. OY!

[Warpy]

12. Right, the male model doesn't work for female anatomy

and the safest years for childbirth are 18-26, and that's for both the woman and her infant. Those are exactly the years the male model wants us getting higher education and establishing a career.

It would be a lot better if we were allowed to have our kids when it was safest and be guaranteed the right to return to school in our 30s.

Unfortunately, we're also judged heavily on our looks, and women out of their 20s just starting careers are often judged adversely, especially if they're entering the corporate ladder.

It's just more evidence of how the world is rigged against women on subtle and not so subtle levels.

[Darth_Kitten]

17. Then let's fight the world.............

The world certainly isn't going to tell me when it's right or wrong to do something. ;)

[Warpy]

27. I mooned "the world" a long time ago

and went my own way. It was a breeze going back to school in my 30s. I no longer had those hours to spend in front of a mirror and wasn't obsessing over a social life or lack thereof. I just breezed through all the courses and got through it.

Of course, I did an even more radical thing. I didn't have any children, at all.

[Vidar]

34. Women and children, at least in this case.

[cory777]

4. Are you saying autistic kids are just more anti-social?

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Depends On The Definition of Autism

There is true autism, which is a profound disorder with a constellation of issues - social, intelligence, and much more.

Then there is "spectrum autism", which has never been demonstrated to be either a spectrum or to be linked to true autism. This seems to be primarily a diagnosis based on social issues, sometimes profound.

[tonysam]

22. I really think so-called high-level autism

should be called something else altogether, although the psychological/psychiatric community is going the other way--wrongly, in my opinion. It's almost like it is a capitulation to people with a political interest in "autism."

There is a WORLD of difference between those people with "classic autism"--the REAL thing--and those who have Asperger syndrome and others with so-called high-functioning autism. There is a far greater difference between those two groups than between high-functioning autistics and the general population.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Agreed

There are some pretty straightforward things that could be done to demonstrate which of these disorders are linked and which are separate but, unfortunately, the psychology community doesn't seem to have a great interest in understanding this. Which is very unfortunate, as this is very, very useful information.

[Darth_Kitten]

5. Or maybe that children of older parents actually do quite well in life?

:shrug:

Not everybody has a kid when they are 18.

[wickerwoman]

23. Also women who have children later in life

are likely to be better educated, wealthier and more likely to pursue and insist on a diagnosis.

[SoCalDem]

6. eggs eventually go "stale"

:(

Sadly there's always a trade-off..

have those babies when you are in your young twenties, and you have to do without a lot until your 40's, but then you can be a young grandma

or wait until you are settled into a career, and rish infertility, autism, down syndrome and a host of other possibilities..and you may not have much energy for grandkids in your 70's...or maybe never if YOUR kids "wait" too..

[Darth_Kitten]

8. Stale?

No evidence of that. :eyes:

[SoCalDem]

11. yes they do..

"stale" from the aspect of the fact that we are born with all we will ever have, and anything we come into contact with throughout our lives "can" affect their "quality"


just one article I found rather quickly for you:)
http://www.womens-health.co.uk/egg_age.html

Egg Quality and a Woman’s Age

A number of couples dealing with the issue of infertility sometimes fail to recognise one particular fact that may be the root cause behind their unsuccessful conception - the age factor. Maternal age in particular, is an important consideration in order to determine the egg quantity and quality and, later, the embryo quality after fertilisation.

Women’s Age and Eggs

Fertility decreases with a woman’s age. This is because every woman has millions of eggs or, more specifically, follicles that mature into eggs inside her body when she is born. By the time she reaches puberty, though, the number of these follicles drops down to about 300,000 to 400,000. During the monthly menstrual cycles, approximately 20 eggs start the journey to maturity but only one or two are finally able to complete this journey and are fit enough to be fertilised. These are the ‘good’ eggs. Therefore, as you start aging, the number of eggs inside your body (egg quantity) and the number of good eggs that could have been fertilised (egg quality) keep depleting. Consequently, over time the chance of fertilisation also drops. Egg quality and quantity are together known as the ovarian reserve and at any particular time, two women of the same age may have very different statistics in terms of this ovarian reserve. But, in general, it has been found that the pregnancy rate begins to decline when people reach their the early 30s while the percentage of infertile couples starts increasing as follows:

* By age 30, 7%
* By age 35, 11%
* By age 40, 33%
* And at age 45, 87% of couples are infertile

Egg Quality

An egg is said to be of good quality if it has good normal chromosomes and it can easily combine with sperm to develop into an embryo. In order to fertilise the egg, sperm need to be healthy enough to travel and reach the fallopian tube (and yes, the quality of sperm also goes down as a man ages, the change is just more subtle and gradual). However, an egg needs to be both healthy enough to fertilise and have the essential qualities necessary to divide and grow into a healthy embryo. Eggs with abnormal chromosomes or those that just have the cytoplasm (the jelly-like material that comprises the cell) cannot ensure successful pregnancy. Also, after fertilisation occurs, eggs need to have ample energy to grow and mature, which is supplied by the mitochondria present in the egg cells. If this energy is not sufficient then the embryo will eventually disintegrate, leading to miscarriage. There are good and bad eggs from the very start in any female’s body, but usually the number of eggs of superior quality are present at a higher volume at a younger age than after 30. While analysing the egg quality, although age is an important factor, no two women can have the same number of good eggs. Egg quality is also affected by external sources like radiation therapy, smoking, chemotherapy and health conditions like endometriosis.

Egg Quality and Fertility

Poor egg quality may lead to infertility and repeated miscarriages due to one of these reasons:

* Egg does not implant into the uterine wall after fertilisation
* Egg implants but cannot grow due to insufficient energy
* With increased age of the mother, the age of the eggs also increases and leads to abnormal chromosomes. Children born may have genetic abnormalities, like Down’s syndrome. This may also be a reason why certain fertility treatments, such as IVF and IUI, are repeatedly unsuccessful in older woman.

snip

[fleabert]

28. or it can happen at 33...

elevated FSH at 33, fertility age of 40-43 declining every month. My chances of getting pregnant naturally are less than 5% and decrease each month I continue to ovulate what's left of my crappy eggs. Fought 3 different insurance companies in 3 different states for 4 years to get that diagnosis; since I was so young, they all told me I just needed to 'relax' and have more sex.

Part of the problem in a recent article I read, sorry don't have the link handy, is that we weren't designed to continuously ovulate during our 20's. If we could find a way to halt ovulation and not still lose eggs, it would be far better for our overall health (cancer rates go up the longer we go without children or breastfeeding), and for our fertility. As of now, AFAIK, there is not a safe way to stop ovulation and prevent the loss of eggs.

and my diagnosis' cause? unknown, probably genetic- although my entire family seems to be the type that gets pregnant if someone mentions it- except for me.

[SoCalDem]

29. Yes that's right..

Women have waaaay more periods now than at any other time in history..

Think about it.. a pregnancy lasts 9 months, and breastfeeding "usually" impedes ovulation, so a baby every 18 months or so, and more or less constant breastfeeding for 6-10 years "preserves" a lot of those eggs..especially if 20 or more follicles are "used" every cycle..

Even though birth control pills are supposed to halt ovulation and you only get a "pretend" period, I am convinced that the hormones mess up your system...and not all that long ago (in an evolutionary sense) girls often did not even start their periods until they were into their teens..sometimes even as late as 15.. Now there are 8 & 9 yr olds getting their periods :cry:..

15 to 40 is 25 yrs..minus all the pregnancy/nursing time
9-40 with NO babies is 31 years-worth of ovulation or "missed opportunitiues"

[fleabert]

35. i was 11 - so 19 yrs of ovulating before i noticed something was wrong.

the heartbreaking part of the whole story for me is that no dr's would listen to me that something was wrong. I got a lot of rolled eyes and pats on the shoulder... 'take a vacation', 'relax', 'you are young- stop worrying!' and refused to test me. When i finally got a day 3 blood test, the ob/gyn refused to have anyone else interpret the results and told me everything was normal. it wasn't.

my reproductive endocrinologist told me immediately that IVF or donor eggs were the only way I'd ever get pg, upon looking at my bloodwork.

i have even had an ob/gyn tell me now (3 yrs, 1 ivf and 2 donated embryo cycles later) that he didn't think i needed ivf. that my numbers were normal. HA! that's why i didn't respond to ivf stim drugs? idiot. 8 yrs of trying and failed ivf not tell you something stupid?

OB/GYN's need to get their noses out of fertility diagnosis and listen to their patients. And women should be offered Day 3 testing for FSH at 30 as part of their annual Pap. /rant

[TeeYiYi]

10. Replace the word 'autism'...

... with the birth defect of your choice, and that study would most likely still apply. Having kids after the age of 40 is a risk that has been known for decades.

FYI, my sister had her autistic son when she was 26.

TYY

[Darth_Kitten]

13. So there's really a risk at any age?

Why 40? We hear after 35, after 30? What's the cutoff age?

Women can have babies until menopause.

What explains teenagers and women in their 20's having babies with Down's Syndrome? Old eggs?

Age is a factor, of course, but we rely too much on it. It's not the only determining factor.

[SoCalDem]

14. The odds are against the older moms, but I too had a child with a serious birth defect..at age 24

our 1st child.. The doctor said that his condition was a 1-600K occurrence, but of course for us, it was 100%..and the abruption (2/3 detached at 7 mo) I had on a first pregnancy at age 24 was also rare..(he advised us to go to Vegas, in a lighter moment)

there is no hard and fast "rule" but mother nature designed women to mature at an early age for a reason... I am not suggesting that we have babies at 13, but the younger you are when you have your kids, the closer to the "plan" you are ..and perhaps less likely to invite health issues for the baby..

With families getting smaller (except for the Duggars:)..) , it seems to make sense to me that we would try our hardest to make sure that the one child or the two children would have the best chance of being healthy..and to not postpone pregnancy until that last egg is about ready to drift off..

Being "tied down" with small kids in your twenties and being poor, is a fair trade off when you weigh the costs of infertility treatments and the possibility of unhealthy children in one's 40's..

[Darth_Kitten]

15. Well, sometimes you have to wait......

and if are otherwise healthy and ovulating, why not have that child? ;)

[SoCalDem]

16. There are always mitigating circumstances

and there are many healthy babies born to older moms, but if you can have a choice..younger is better:) a baby is forever..and a healthy one is much easier to raise and the guilt I felt (unwarranted, but still) would have been ten times worse, had we had him at an older age..

[Darth_Kitten]

18. Don't feel guilty......

Well, younger isn't necessarily better if you aren't equipped to handle a child.
(not you, others I've seen)

Sometimes you have to wait for the right partner. Having just any partner doesn't cut it when having a child. The right person doesn't always come around at 20. :(

[SoCalDem]

20. I got over it, but it drove me nuts for a long time..wondering

if there was anything I could have done or not done...but it was just a "bad" egg..

the defect has been replicated in the lab by fertilization of a "dying" egg..so it was just piss-poor timing on our part..but our son has the problem for life..and he had nothing to do with any of it....sometimes shit just happens..

but anything you can do to lessen the chances is a plus..:)

[SoCalDem]

21. oops a dupe

[tonysam]

19. "Autism" is almost a catch-all term these days

that include children who were once labeled "mentally retarded." Those with "classic autism" ARE almost always MR, but now there is a stigma attached to the dreaded MR, while "autism" is more fashionable.

I truly suspect the rise in "autism" cases has to do with reclassifying children who were previously diagnosed as MR and with other cognitive disabilities.

[TexasObserver]

31. That does seem to be a problem.

The overreach of the conditions now called "autism" has cloaked the distinctions among conditions.

[trotsky]

33. You are correct.

Coupled with an expansion of the diagnostic criteria - many who are socially awkward are sometimes included on the high end of the Aspergers portion of the autism spectrum. Your quirky old uncle who never married and had a basement full of model planes, but otherwise held down a well-paying job and got along just fine? Autistic.

[elleng]

32. and I had my first daughter 2 weeks before my 40th birthday,

and my second when I was 43. They're in college and graduate school now.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

36. Both Parents’ Ages Linked to Autism Risk

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/09autism.html