Head Growth Trajectories During the First Year of Life and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Rewaa Balaum, Leena Elbedour, Einav Alhozyel and 5 others
PMID 41466388WHAT IT FOUND
Infants whose head circumference stayed small or large, or rose from normal to large, were more strongly linked to later autism diagnosis than infants with normal head growth.
The link was strongest when head and height growth were abnormal together.
Key findings
01Consistently small or consistently large head circumference through the first year was associated with about threefold higher adjusted odds of autism than a consistently normal trajectory (2.95 and 3.17).
02The odds of autism were much higher when small or large head circumference also matched small or large height (adjusted odds ratios 7.71 and 6.89) than when only head growth was abnormal (1.62 and 2.61).
03Head circumference consistently in the 0% to 5% percentile had adjusted odds 9.53, and head circumference consistently in the 95% to 100% percentile had adjusted odds 6.51.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study only followed growth for the first year. It did not test whether head growth causes autism. The sample came from southern Israel, with two main ethnic groups. Children with other developmental disorders were excluded. Genetic testing was not available. No sex-specific analyses were done. Head growth alone was not the strongest signal; the association was strongest when height growth was also abnormal.
Declared interests
The Israel Science Foundation funded the work (grant 1863-24). The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use head growth trajectory to diagnose autism or choose treatment. The study found an association in a case-control sample, not a predictive test for an individual child, and the pattern was not universal.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →