A 3D approach to understanding heterogeneity in early developing autisms.

BACKGROUND

Phenotypic heterogeneity in early language, intellectual, motor, and adaptive functioning (LIMA) features are amongst the most striking features that distinguish different types of autistic individuals. Yet the current diagnostic criteria uses a single label of autism and implicitly emphasizes what individuals have in common as core social-communicative and restricted repetitive behavior difficulties. Subtype labels based on the non-core LIMA features may help to more meaningfully distinguish types of autisms with differing developmental paths and differential underlying biology.

METHODS

Unsupervised data-driven subtypes were identified using stability-based relative clustering validation on publicly available Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) data (n = 615; age = 24-68 months) from the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive (NDA). Differential developmental trajectories between subtypes were tested on longitudinal data from NDA and from an independent in-house dataset from UCSD. A subset of the UCSD dataset was also tested for subtype differences in functional and structural neuroimaging phenotypes and relationships with blood gene expression. The current subtyping model was also compared to early language outcome subtypes derived from past work.

RESULTS

Two autism subtypes can be identified based on early phenotypic LIMA features. These data-driven subtypes are robust in the population and can be identified in independent data with 98% accuracy. The subtypes can be described as Type I versus Type II autisms differentiated by relatively high versus low scores on LIMA features. These two types of autisms are also distinguished by different developmental trajectories over the first decade of life. Finally, these two types of autisms reveal striking differences in functional and structural neuroimaging phenotypes and their relationships with gene expression and may highlight unique biological mechanisms.

LIMITATIONS

Sample sizes for the neuroimaging and gene expression dataset are relatively small and require further independent replication. The current work is also limited to subtyping based on MSEL and VABS phenotypic measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This work emphasizes the potential importance of stratifying autism by a Type I versus Type II distinction focused on LIMA features and which may be of high prognostic and biological significance.