What the subtypes actually are and why it matters
Date Published: July 16, 2025
Watch Time: 3:53
Video Transcript
My breakdown of the autism Princeton study... part 1
Ok, let's decode this thing together. Because it's... a lot. (Even for someone like me with a relevant degree. 😅)
I'll start here. The study was conducted on a sampling of diagnosed children. Mostly male. 80-ish percent. And racial representation was not explicitly looked at. This means that the 5k+ people studied are not representative of the autistic population in general.
Next...
They identified 4 presentations of autism within this particular group, which many people discussing the research have been referring to as "subtypes."
It sounds like a simple finding, but there are several important things to understand about this result…
Video Transcript:
My breakdown of the autism Princeton study... part 1
Ok, let's decode this thing together. Because it's... a lot. (Even for someone like me with a relevant degree. 😅)
I'll start here. The study was conducted on a sampling of diagnosed children. Mostly male. 80-ish percent. And racial representation was not explicitly looked at. This means that the 5k+ people studied are not representative of the autistic population in general.
Next...
They identified 4 presentations of autism within this particular group, which many people discussing the research have been referring to as "subtypes."
It sounds like a simple finding, but there are several important things to understand about this result.
The presentations are not actually subtypes. They are related to phenotype clusters, which I'll explain more about in a minute.
But because the term subtype has come up a lot in online conversations about the study, I think it's important to be crystal clear about this point.
Subtypes, like those outlined in the DSM for ADHD, define how a condition shows up based on specific traits of the condition itself.
For those who don't know, ADHD has 3 subtypes... inattentive type, hyperactive-impulsive type, and combined type. And when someone is diagnosed, they are assigned a subtype with their diagnosis. The subtype is fixed and describes how a person's ADHD showed up during the diagnostic process.
However, what was uncovered in this Princeton study are pattern clusters related to age of onset, developmental delays, cognitive ability, severity of challenges, among other things. And they are not fixed.
These pattern clusters do not represent 4 specific manifestations of autism that exist universally across the autistic population. They only represent the 4 pattern clusters that showed up within the particular group of people that was being studied.
So though this particular group of 5k+ showed 4 specific pattern clusters, it doesn't mean that another group of 5k would show the exact same patterns.
And my unscientific guess is that more than likely the pattern clusters would look different if a group of all women were analyzed. Or a group of all people of color.
But I would even go as far as to say that if the scientists were able to get 2 truly representative samplings of autistic participants... and analyze both groups... the pattern clusters found would NOT be identical.
This is obviously just a hypothesis, but based on how I'm understanding the research... to me, this seems like a logical and likely possibility.
So if the researchers aren't saying that autism should be diagnosed using the 4 specific pattern clusters identified in this study the way ADHD is diagnosed using the ADHD subtypes... what ARE they saying?
Well, here's where it gets particularly confusing and the part I'm still trying to wrap my head around myself. But...
The research uncovered patterns within each of the 4 groups related to biological and genetic markers, suggesting that our autistic experiences are biologically rooted.
I need to sit on the biology part a bit more before I try and explain it in greater detail. But for now, I think the takeaway is that different phenotype presentations of autism have different biological roots and explanations.
I have at least 10 more posts worth of thoughts to share about this research. This post barely scratches the surface. But I haven't seen anyone explain the research and findings in this way, and I think it helps clarify what the study did and didn't actually show... so I thought I'd start there.
Let me know if you found this helpful. I will definitely be back with more, but if you have specific questions about this study that you'd like me to address, let me know.
And a quick note for those who brought up Kimberly Kitzerow on my previous post... I know there’s been some discussion around whether Kimberly’s earlier work should have been credited in connection with this study.
As of now, there hasn’t been any formal resolution or broad consensus on this and I’m not in a position to make my own determination about the accuracy of the claims. If a clear link is established, I will absolutely make sure to credit her.
For now, I’ll be focusing on the findings that were shared in the published research as I feel they add an important layer to our understanding of autism as a community.
The study, for reference...