Phenotypic divergence between individuals with self-reported autistic traits and clinically ascertained autism

Sarah M. Banker, Miles Harrington, Matthew Schafer, Soojung Na, Matthew Heflin, Sarah Barkley, Jadyn Trayvick, Arabella W. Peters, Abigaël A. Thinakaran, Daniela Schiller, Jennifer H. Foss-Feig, Xiaosi Gu
{"title":"Phenotypic divergence between individuals with self-reported autistic traits and clinically ascertained autism","authors":"Sarah M. Banker, Miles Harrington, Matthew Schafer, Soojung Na, Matthew Heflin, Sarah Barkley, Jadyn Trayvick, Arabella W. Peters, Abigaël A. Thinakaran, Daniela Schiller, Jennifer H. Foss-Feig, Xiaosi Gu","doi":"10.1038/s44220-025-00385-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While allowing for rapid recruitment of large samples, online research relies heavily on participants’ self-reports of neuropsychiatric traits, foregoing the clinical characterizations available in laboratory settings. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research is one example for which the clinical validity of such an approach remains elusive. Here we compared 56 adults with ASD recruited in person and evaluated by clinicians to matched samples of adults recruited through an online platform (Prolific; 56 with high autistic traits and 56 with low autistic traits) and evaluated via self-reported surveys. Despite having comparable self-reported autistic traits, the online high-trait group reported significantly more social anxiety and avoidant symptoms than in-person ASD participants. Within the in-person sample, there was no relationship between self-rated and clinician-rated autistic traits, suggesting they may capture different aspects of ASD. The groups also differed in their social tendencies during two decision-making tasks; the in-person ASD group was less perceptive of opportunities for social influence and acted less affiliative toward virtual characters. These findings highlight the need for a differentiation between clinically ascertained and trait-defined samples in autism research. Comparing clinically diagnosed adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with online participants with self-reported high autistic traits, this study detected higher rates of social anxiety and avoidance symptoms in online participants, emphasizing the potential distinctions between clinically ascertained autism and self-reported trait-based samples.","PeriodicalId":74247,"journal":{"name":"Nature mental health","volume":"3 3","pages":"286-297"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-025-00385-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-025-00385-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While allowing for rapid recruitment of large samples, online research relies heavily on participants’ self-reports of neuropsychiatric traits, foregoing the clinical characterizations available in laboratory settings. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research is one example for which the clinical validity of such an approach remains elusive. Here we compared 56 adults with ASD recruited in person and evaluated by clinicians to matched samples of adults recruited through an online platform (Prolific; 56 with high autistic traits and 56 with low autistic traits) and evaluated via self-reported surveys. Despite having comparable self-reported autistic traits, the online high-trait group reported significantly more social anxiety and avoidant symptoms than in-person ASD participants. Within the in-person sample, there was no relationship between self-rated and clinician-rated autistic traits, suggesting they may capture different aspects of ASD. The groups also differed in their social tendencies during two decision-making tasks; the in-person ASD group was less perceptive of opportunities for social influence and acted less affiliative toward virtual characters. These findings highlight the need for a differentiation between clinically ascertained and trait-defined samples in autism research. Comparing clinically diagnosed adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with online participants with self-reported high autistic traits, this study detected higher rates of social anxiety and avoidance symptoms in online participants, emphasizing the potential distinctions between clinically ascertained autism and self-reported trait-based samples.

Abstract Image

自我报告的自闭症特征与临床确诊的自闭症之间的表型差异
虽然允许快速招募大量样本,但在线研究在很大程度上依赖于参与者对神经精神特征的自我报告,而不是实验室环境中可用的临床特征。自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)研究就是一个例子,这种方法的临床有效性仍然难以捉摸。在这里,我们将56名ASD成人患者与通过在线平台招募的成人样本(多产;56名高自闭症特征患者和56名低自闭症特征患者)并通过自我报告调查进行评估。尽管有类似的自我报告的自闭症特征,但在线高特征组报告的社交焦虑和回避症状明显多于真人ASD参与者。在面对面的样本中,自我评定和临床评定的自闭症特征之间没有关系,这表明它们可能反映了自闭症的不同方面。在两项决策任务中,两组人的社会倾向也有所不同;真人自闭症组对社会影响机会的感知能力较差,对虚拟角色的亲和力也较低。这些发现强调了在自闭症研究中区分临床确定样本和特征定义样本的必要性。将临床诊断为自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的成年人与自我报告的高自闭症特征的在线参与者进行比较,本研究发现在线参与者中社交焦虑和回避症状的比例更高,强调了临床确定的自闭症和自我报告的基于特征的样本之间的潜在区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信