|
|
|
|
|
|
by kaitai
2849 days ago
|
|
|
They also could/should have adjusted for paternal age, which may be a significant factor (see [1] for lots of links). (There is some interesting statistical stuff going on with paternal age -- some researchers claim if you bin by birth year some of the paternal effect disappears, which is odd! However, the article under discussion considers only children born between 1987 and 2005, so it's not a huge range of birth years...) They do have data on paternal age, but they don't include it in Table 1. Odd. [1] https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/link-parental-age-autism-e... |
|
|