Clinical Evaluations on the Diagnosis of Autism

Autism spectrum disorders are currently formally diagnosed after pursuing two levels of investigation (Blackwell, 2001; Filipek et al., 1999, 2000). The first consists of monitoring the child’s development and specific autism signal detection, which implies parent and physician attention, while the second involves actual diagnosis and evaluation, performed by specialized medical staff. Both levels of diagnosis rely on the careful observation of specific changes in child development, concerning movement, discovery and interaction with objects and people, games and language, which exhibit atypical variations in autism spectrum disorders. Intelligence tests, which aim to be a conventional estimate for the severity of mental retardation that may accompany autism, can serve as a relatively suitable approximation. There are many specific tests to diagnose autism, none ubiquously applied, and the final diagnosis depends on an overall estimation of brain function and, to a great extent, on the competence of the diagnostician. Therefore, the evaluation of a clinical diagnosis of autism through paraclinical methods – whether imaging, functional or laboratory work (metabolic, immunological, cytogenetic or molecular tests) – that would justify a medical conclusion, represents a necessity that is still unattainable. For autism spectrum disorders no specific paraclinical methods have as yet been identified, despite serious efforts invested. Traditional medicine was overcome in discriminate between different patients, thus opening the door for interdisciplinary studies which developed into new sciences, like psychoneuroendocrinology, psychoneuroimmunology and their corresponding insertions in genetics. Over the years, some of the elements suspected to be involved in causing autism spectrum disorders were studied, providing mixed results. The present study will list converging results, and will attempt to portray autism from the perspective of modern investigation methods.