3.9 Article

Autism Prevalence and Precipitation Rates in California, Oregon, and Washington Counties

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
Volume 162, Issue 11, Pages 1026-1034

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.162.11.1026

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Cornell University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate empirically the possibility of an environmental trigger for autism among genetically vulnerable children that is positively associated with precipitation. Design: We used regression analysis to investigate autism prevalence rates and counts first in relation to mean annual county-level precipitation and then to the amount of precipitation a birth cohort was exposed to when younger than 3 years, controlling for time trend, population size, per capita income, and demographic characteristics. In some models, we included county fixed-effects rather than a full set of covariates. Setting: Counties in California, Oregon, and Washington. Participants: Children born in California, Oregon, and Washington between 1987 and 1999. Main Exposure: County-level precipitation. Outcome Measures: County-level autism prevalence rates and counts. Results: County-level autism prevalence rates and counts among school-aged children were positively associated with a county's mean annual precipitation. Also, the amount of precipitation a birth cohort was exposed to when younger than 3 years was positively associated with subsequent autism prevalence rates and counts in Oregon counties and California counties with a regional developmental services center. Conclusions: These results are consistent with the existence of an environmental trigger for autism among genetically vulnerable children that is positively associated with precipitation. Further studies focused on establishing whether such a trigger exists and identifying the specific trigger are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available