Pregnancy inducement correlated with autism and reduced IQ

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
In the new study, researchers looked at the birth records of more than 625,000 babies born in North Carolina between 1990 and 1998, and compared those with public school records to see who was later diagnosed with autism.

According to the researchers, 1.3 percent of boys and 0.4 percent of girls were diagnosed with autism. Specifically, boys born to moms whose labor was induced or helped along were 35 percent more likely to develop autism, compared with their counterparts. Among girls, only augmented labor was associated with an increased risk for autism. The increased risk of autism held even after researchers controlled for other factors such as the mother's age.

Exactly how labor induction could affect autism risk is unknown, but the drug oxytocin may play a role.


http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130812/induced-labor-linked-to-raised-risk-of-autism-study-suggests


Children born at 37 weeks gestation scored an average of 1 point lower than children born at 41 weeks. That translates into about 1.5 IQ points.

While the difference in IQ may not seem like much, the researchers also found that babies born at 37 weeks were 23 percent more likely to show moderate reading impairment and 19 percent more likely to struggle with math.


http://www.whattoexpect.com/wom/pregnancy/0705/longer-pregnancy-may-mean-smarter-kids.aspx


Doctors and patients are sometimes inducing labor for frivolous reasons, like to avoid giving birth on holidays. Here is one example:

When I was pregnant with my third baby, my due date came and went with no signs of delivery. My doctor scheduled me for an elective induction as a matter of course — time to get the show on the road! Not so fast, I said. I canceled the induction.


Making inducement also controversial is the way it's apparently the case that ultrasounds and similar pre-birth evidence isn't enough to make good estimations about infant size. An article I read today said medical professionals would guess wrong roughly half the time based on that data. Induced births are linked with a higher chance of the baby needing to be placed in intensive care as well as a higher rate of them needing to be delivered by C section (although this latter issue could be because of infant size).

So, the bottom line here is that it's important to do inducement only when it's definitely necessary. It may be a good idea to try to avoid oxytocin also.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
27,664
12,086
136
Whenever I see studies about correlations between X and Y:
RWB0Lfm.png


Correlation is not causal. However, we shouldn't always dismiss it out of hand - observations like this can lead to testable hypotheses that would need further study (i.e. "the drug oxytocin may play a role"). In the case of autism and causes, it seems to me that we know little about why autism occurs and thus we see all these correlations hyped by the echo chamber of the web and poor science reporting.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
As others already pointed out, correlation and causation are two different things. Also, you have to factor in that it's likely that inducement of labor is going to be correlated with problems in the pregnancy, which is correlated with a lot of things like obesity, stress, etc, and of course is going to be correlated with a host of issues later in life.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
3 People in this thread immediately posted that correlation is not causation. OP's thread title specifically says correlation.

This thread confirms at least 3 people most likely had induced births.
 
Dec 10, 2005
27,664
12,086
136
That's probably why he put correlated in the title instead of caused.
And that's also why "correlated" is not that interesting overall. Lots of things are correlated - perhaps the OP should get back to us when they have something more definitive.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
3 People in this thread immediately posted that correlation is not causation. OP's thread title specifically says correlation.

This thread confirms at least 3 people most likely had induced births.

Perhaps most alarming is, what did they start adding to cheese in 2004 that caused such a lull in bedsheet deaths?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
you are in the autism capital here in these forums. Tread carefully friend.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Perhaps most alarming is, what did they start adding to cheese in 2004 that caused such a lull in bedsheet deaths?

Lactose intolerance and pain so intolerable that you have to literally "clutch at the bedsheets" perfectly explainable to anybody but an autist.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
99,071
17,433
126
3 People in this thread immediately posted that correlation is not causation. OP's thread title specifically says correlation.

This thread confirms at least 3 people most likely had induced births.

You can't count huh? you count as one.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
99,071
17,433
126
Now you're just being sore that I called you out. Did you not read thread title? Or misread? Or misunderstand? Which is it?
Correlation is a dime a dozen. Actuarial is filled with those and they piss me off.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Yeah, sorry OP, this is a bullshit study. The correct way to do this study is to clone 100000 women, impregnate them all using the same sperm donor, and lock them up in a carefully-controlled laboratory for up to nine months, depending on whether they're part of the induced population or the control population. Then, take the babies and adopt them out to specially-selected parents, ensuring they all have similar socioeconomic and geographic environments. Then, parents will receive instructions on how often they may send their children to psychiatrists. The psychiatrists will be trained by the creators of the study to ensure even standards of diagnosis and treatment. When the children reach adulthood, they will receive instructions to read an internet discussion regarding correlation in a hypothetical scientific study. If they have no comment on the study itself but instead blurt out something along the lines of "B-b-but correlation isn't causation", they will be considered autistic. The study will then conclude.

EDIT: That being said, a quick Google took me straight to a study from Harvard on a Swedish children, and they saw a similar correlation until they factored in sibling effects, after which the correlation disappeared. So in this case, it does look like simple spurious correlation.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2534479
 
Last edited: