Talk:Neurodevelopmental disorder

Comments
Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) is a subset of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (ND). PDD (or Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)) is not the same as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ND) which also includes genetic-based disorders (such as Down Syndrome or Williams Syndrome), learning/cognitive disorders (such as Learning Disorders (LD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)), as well as environmentally induced disorders (such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or Lead Poisoning). Please do lump ND as a kind of PDD. ND is the superorderinate category underwhich PDD is typically placed.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs)

I agree. mixing PDD and other neurodevolopmental disorders is like saying schizophrenia is the same as depression. In both case, we have no clear idea of the causes of the disorders, a battle raging between experts as to know wether it's genetic or environmental, or both and to what degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova 6969 (talk • contribs)

Can you include the Neurodiverse angle in these 'arguments' please? They have all been written from a medical angle and blame those with the conditions on society rather than the other way round. The constant use of 'disorder' suggests that the world is ruled my neurotypicals and needs to be balanced. AsparagusTips (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you feel the "neurodiverse" angle should be included in an encyclopaedic article? It makes more sense for encyclopaedic content to adhere to the broadly agreed medical opinion, not personal preferences - Piers39293 (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe ADHD should not be listed under "Genetic disorders" (under "Definitions and types"), as the cause for ADHD is currently not known, as per my understanding. Also, as per the ADHD Wikipedia article: "...the exact cause is unknown in the majority of cases."

Broken link

 * ...physical and emotional burdens to individuals, families, and society. Therefore, research into the pathogenesis and treatment of these disorders, aimed at the cure and amelioration of their effects on individuals, families, and society, is of considerable importance." University of North Carolina.  

There is a quote at the end of the text here with no opening quote I can see. Further, the link is dead, so I am going to zap it for now. --DanielCD 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Substantial changes to the article
I consider this article too important to languish as a stub. As far as I can tell it is a good start class article. Editors may compare my edit today to previous version and will see that I tried to save verifiable material. I tried to address the concerns expressed in the first comment above, by User:Theguyinblue This article needs better external resources, more instances of causative agents, and better readability. I believe it needs to be put in more categories as well but I don't normally edit similar articles so don't have a clue as to which would be appropriate. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get down to proof-reading, copy-editing and the like tomorrow. I'm not too good at spotting ideas/flaws with content, you may wish to find someone else like that. I know that Delldot seems to be interested in this sort of thing, maybe give her a call on this? Kind regards — CycloneNimrod T@lk? 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have to watch carefully as to not WP:SYN such articles so I prefer editing articles about plants. But this one REALLY needed expansion.Trilobitealive (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To do
Sorry about the nasty edit conflict, I think it's fixed now. I think we're in more of an expanding than copy editing stage right now, so I'll let up with that. Here are some of my thoughts on the article so far: It's a good start! I think adding references to reliable sources is the most important thing. Good work so far. delldot  talk  20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trilobite is right, more citations are needed. We should be able to reliably cite the definition (I took out the ref to wiktionary per WP:RS) and all other non-obvious claims in the article.
 * Possibly a Definition or Classification section?
 * Define difficult terms in the text (in parentheses if need be): multifactoral syndrome, behavioral retardation.
 * Genetic disorders: get info on disorders other than Downs.
 * Mention autism and other not completely understood conditions under Common causative factors?
 * In its current state, I'd say the Cultural and historical information section should be ditched. Controversies about autism should be kept on the autism-related pages, this is too much detail for this general of an article.  Also, discussing this one facet of the debate would probably be giving undue weight to one side; I'm sure the scientific consensus is that autism is a disorder.  Certainly a section such as Cultural and historical context could be added, but I don't think any of this info is worth keeping.
 * It looks like there might be some fringe views overrepresented here. Since this is such a general article, we should be sticking to summaries here, probably leaving the fringe views to be discussed in the pertinent articles.  At the very least, these statements should all be impeccably sourced to highly reliable, secondary or tertiary sources.  delldot   talk


 * I looked at the article again today and must say you two are really cleaning it up well. I'm learning a lot by going through the edit summaries. My personal plans were to avoid touching it until you had time to finish what you wanted to do this week.
 * Then I was planning to gather some more references for specific syndromes, causes, and comorbid conditions such as neural tube defects, Williams Syndrome, Rett syndrome, Schizophrenia, Rickets, Scurvy, Premature birth et cetera, look into possibly making a separate Comorbid conditions section, delete the Cultural and historical information section. (That particular section was one of the holdovers from the original stub article that I tried to salvage but I agree it won't work. If you look at the edit history you'll see the stub article was very minimalistic at best, but someone had made an honest effort at starting it and I didn't want to just throw it out without consensus.) Common causative factors might be less descriptive than Multifactoral conditions or Poorly defined causation. Off the top of my head, the best example I can think of a well understood and well defined complex multifactoral condition is PANDAS which is a combination of genetic, autoimmune, infectious, behavioral, mood, movement, learning disorder. Compared to it, the autistic disorders are much less well defined.
 * Trauma is a separate issue, mostly a sorting and winnowing problem. I could write a book about Child abuse, but at what point does it stop causing neurodevelopmental problems and start causing psychodevelopmental problems or sociodevelopmental problems? And at what point should it be reclassified as deprivation or multifactoral?
 * Autism? I'm much more interested in adding information about PDD. I wonder about just writing a descriptive paragraph in the "As yet unnamed" section, adding and working on the other parts.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm basically done with this batch of copyediting, go ahead and add your content (the article will probably be different after you're done adding anyway, so a waste of time to copyedit now. At least that's the way I write--everything gets changed around).
 * Do we have a source saying that trauma counts as a disorder? Or does it cause one?  I think we should have sources for each thing listed saying it's actually under this rubric.  We've got so much to cover here, we're probably going to end up with summaries of everything, in some cases no more than a sentence each.
 * I agree that psychological problems should be covered elsewhere.
 * Gimme a poke when you're done with the next round of additions! I'll have another look.   delldot   talk  02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does WP:MED have any structuring criteria for this type of article? It's not disease classification, so I don't have much experience with the structuring here. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 11:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback for initial bullet points
I'm having trouble coming up with a suitably referenced definition/classification scheme, otherwise I've made a start on the other points. I've tried to winnow out more of the fringe stuff but probably need another viewpoint at this time. (Article is roughly twice the length as when you put up these points). I thought about a section on diagnosis and evaluation, but that would drift more toward neuropsychological evaluation technobabble. There is enough of that already.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Section deletion note
The section deletion of Cultural and historical information: was by me, done at work on an office computer which sometimes kicks me off the Wikipedia logon. I think that this section needs expansion and re-inclusion once it can be made to not violate WP:DUE but that is for another day.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

More suggestions
Coming along very well! Excellent progress. Some suggestions:
 * I would definitely keep working on hammering down the definition. The first two sentences seem to offer two different definitions.
 * caregivers can ameliorate blindness-related sensory deprivation,[15] leading to positive neurodevelopmental outcomes, as in the cases of author Helen Keller[16] and musicians Arthel "Doc" Watson[17] and Ray Charles. - What did the parents do in these cases? What happened with these people?
 * In the child juvenile diabetes can produce neurodevelopmental damage by the effects of excessive glucose. The problems continue and may worsen throughout childhood if the diabetes is not well controlled. - What does the glucose do? What types of symptoms does it cause?
 * Short (one- or two-sentence) paragraphs are discouraged. Check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a].
 * I would discuss Inborn error of metabolism further under Metabolic disorders.
 * References should have publisher, author, date, title, (and accessdate if it's a website, but journal sites don't need accessdates). PDFs should have format=pdf in the cite template.  See Template:cite journal for example.
 * Article titles are not in caps (Except for the first letter, letters after periods or colons, and proper nouns).
 * I'm not sure this is a reliable source: http://www.uniquekidssurvey.com/index.html The best sources are textbooks from reliable, well-known publishers and journal articles (see WP:MEDRS). Wiki articles cannot be used as sources.  Most sources look good.
 * Does fetal alcohol syndrome belong under Nutrition? Maybe a separate section for, uh, insults during pregnancy?
 * I don't think obstruction of the trachea is the right definition for asphyxia -- I think it has to do with an extreme deficiency in O2.
 * The trauma section is covering more than just trauma--trauma is used to mean mechanical forces usually (e.g. TBI only refers to injury by mechanical force). The umbrella term is acquired brain injury, which covers hypoxia, stroke, etc.  Maybe "Brain injury" as a title for this subheading?
 * I think the trauma section goes into too much detail about epidemiology and not enough about the effects of brain trauma on youngsters. It's not clear that these stats are specific to kids (do neurodevelopmental disorders occur in adults too?) and they're US-specific stats, which don't give a worldwide view (but believe me, I'm familiar with the difficulty in getting epidemiology info for countries that aren't the US).
 * Citation needed: Arguably the most well known environmental toxic cause of neurodevelopmental disorders is heavy metal poisoning; the classic 20th century example is Minamata disease. 

Overall, it's coming along great, it's certainly a lot farther along than when I last looked at it! I think the biggest thing to focus on would be nailing down that definition; the reader gets a good idea of the variety of things that can cause the disorders, but only a fuzzy idea of what they are. A classification section would be good if possible, and also sections that cover common features of each (e.g. "Diagnosis", "Treatment"). These would have to be vague, but they could cover common techniques and give a better idea of what these disorders have in common with one another. Other suggestions are in WP:MEDMOS. delldot  talk  00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

picture of Temple Grandin
I wonder whether a more representative picture could be found? As far as I know, it isn't clear that Asperger's syndrome (high-functioning autism) should be classified as a developmental disorder (the neural basis is unknown). Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you like to post instead? Be bold and find a picture you like better. Also if you're interested you might look at adding to the article as you think it needs.
 * (I didn't put up her picture to advertise her having Asperger syndrome, but rather out of respect for her efforts to create popular awareness of autism.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

moved photoTrilobitealive (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this image, from Wikipedia commons? It shows a person with microcephaly (small brain), which is clearly a neurodevelopmental disorder. Anyway, this isn't really my area, but I'll give the article a once-over to see if anything pops out at me. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you put this picture up, I'd recommend to add the link microcephaly to its caption. This picture (and the fact that I've not found a good way of implementing Delldot's recommendation to add to the introduction and have a classification section without creating unpublished research. (See WP:SYN)Trilobitealive (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

moved photoTrilobitealive (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this image for fetal alcohol syndrome. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better in some ways, but the labels are unfortunate, because they don't have anything to do with neurodevelopment. Even so, FAS does clearly belong in this topic. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Such photos are fairly popular in beginning level textbooks as they provide a quick reference for the student who's memorizing dozens of syndromes for their weekly quiz. If this is posted to the article I'd recommend changing the caption to something like: Typical facial features which may aid in the clinical recognition of Fetal alcohol syndrome.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism spectrum page
What happened to the autism spectrum page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC) It looks to me like User:Eubulides made it into a redirect page. You might want to discuss it with him/her.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

thnak you

where did he get the ability to do such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like he made the comment that he would like to change the article then when no one spoke up for a few days he changed it. I'm planning on doing the same thing elsewhere (see Talk:Not-for-profit corporation) after I've allowed my warning to sit for a few more weeks. But the place for such discussion is on Talk:Autism spectrum, don't you think?Trilobitealive (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox with ICD index?
Does this article cover the ICD Q00-Q07? And if yes, maybe some infobox should be added, or it should be otherwise somehow mentioned? -- C opper K ettle  09:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm completely unfamiliar with ICD, but yes, following your link, that's the range of things this article covers. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody watching?
I've been building a page loosely organized on Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Malformation (It's roughed out on my Talk page) and was wondering how I could "interface" with this article. This is a very nicely written article, but my strengths are in list-building, especially with regards to developmental medicine. Any ideas?doctorwolfie (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nerodevelopmental disorder versus condition?
So why do I find this article moved from Neurodevelopmental disorder to Neurodevelopmental condition with no warning, no discussion and no consensus? Trilobitealive (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point another editor has moved the page back to where it belongs. I've noted my complaint on User talk:Quinser's and have filed a complaint at  Administrator intervention against vandalism since it appears to me that User:Quinser's may be vandalizing more than just this page.Trilobitealive (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have written it here, but it was me. My standpoint is that all Quinser's moves get reverted, and thereafter, Quincer's can start a discussion about moving the article here on the talk page, and try to get consensus.   Lova Falk     talk   18:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a random article to edit and ran across this one, but I would like to know why any genetic disorder is included on a page about Neurodevelopmental disorder. I would like to seek a consensus on removing that from the page, and also on WP I see that new users edits are often reverted and I don't want to do a lot of work and that happens. What do I need to know to edit this page? I see that better references are needed, but what else?AlF6Na3 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neurodevelopmental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403162637/http://www.nads.org/pages_new/facts.html to http://www.nads.org/pages_new/facts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I undid a change where the entire en.wiki article was changed to Spanish. I can't see if this has been done before, but perhaps the author who made the change could explain why this was done. Is there a need for article protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers39293 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Types
The wording is weird mainly the usage of "includes"( the verb to include) does not necessarily mean we have exhausted all known and researched items as such is not a thorough list at all it is a very poor work.  currently considered neurodevelopmental are definetely of one of these types; Does not mean we are wrong. Currently at the present level of medical science and research there are not any more known. These are the only types. Tomorrow some researcher might find something new we are not at fault we are not wrong. For someone reading an encyclopedia the writers should really put more effort to exhaust any and all research published in the medical science and related fields.Ntoulinho (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)§

Nonverbal learning disorder
A new editor and IP (clearly the same person) is edit warring Nonverbal learning disorder into the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder despite the fact that NVLD has no official status with either ICD or DSM-5. Sundayclose (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The ICD and DSM-5 are not bibles. I provided evidence that NVLD is a widely used term among researchers and clinicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmith1992 (talk • contribs)
 * I have no attachment to the subject but it clearly should not be listed as a disorder since it is not formally recognized as such. As long as it is listed separately as a research topic, and no undue influence like underlining how accepted it is, I do not have a problem with its inclusion. Ifnord (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're accepting the DSM/IDC as the absolute authority of what is and is not formal recognition, then why not just say 'formally recognized by the DSM/IDC.' If clinicians, educators researchers world-wide use the term, notwithstanding the DSM, why not "widely"? Asmith1992 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"identified by some" understates the weight of scientific opinion ("Nonverbal learning disorder is not categorized in the IDC or DSM as an discrete classification but is identified by some clinicians, educators and researchers"). I propose (direct quote): " 'The majority of researchers and clinicians agree that the profile of NLD clearly exists...but they disagree on the need for a specific clinical category and on the criteria for its identification.' "

Stating the fact that it is a *majority* opinion is truthful and important, and does not undercut the DSM's putative consensus definition. Asmith1992 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We need a page number for the quotation from the AJLD article by Brenchley. Sundayclose (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken as to the source, the correct cite is:

Mammarella, Irene C.; Cornoldi, Cesare (4 May 2014). "An analysis of the criteria used to diagnose children with Nonverbal Learning Disability (NLD)". Child Neuropsychology. 20 (3): 255–280, 256. doi:10.1080/09297049.2013.796920. ISSN 0929-7049. PMID 23705673. (page 256).Asmith1992 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No basis for this article
I agree, there is no real medical or scientific research to support this article. Autism and ADHD has nothing to do neurodevelopment disorders. Simply put this article should be scrubbed as it has the potential to misinform an enormous public and new generation of wellness advisors to the abilities or disabilities of at least 20% of the worlds population. It also misinforms to what actual neurodevelopment disorders are and the potential people with these disorders truly have. There has got to be a better system in place for actual facts verses public opinion on Wikipedia as the sad fact is you now carry a greater responsibility of the real well researched encyclopedias of yore. 86.31.122.93 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Every reliable source classifies Autism and ADHD as a neurodevelopmental disorder, what are you talking about?--Megaman en m (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Types at present
Currently the "Types" section states that "According to the DSM V, the neurodevelopmental disorders include the following:" Firstly, it should be DSM-5 by convention (we use Roman numerals for the first through fourth editions, Arabic numerals from the fifth edition onwards). Secondly, the eleventh type listened is OCD, which does not even appear in the cited source at all, nor is it classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the DSM-5. I am unsure what other inaccuracies there are, but the DSM-5 chapter on neurodevelopmental disorders contains the following groups of disorders: Intellectual disabilities; Communication disorders; Autism spectrum disorder; ADHD; Specific learning disorder; Motor disorders. There is no mention at all of things like OCD or fragile X syndrome in this chapter. Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders have their own chapter. It is also worth noting that the DSM-5 chapters are in a logical order (e.g. they state that the chapter on bipolar-type disorders is between the chapters on psychotic disorders and mood disorders to represent its theoretical position between those groups) and the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders do not come immediately after the neurodevelopmental disorders, so the DSM-5 does not even hint at there being a relationship between these groups, let alone OCD being a neurodevelopmental disorder itself. I shall remove OCD from this list but am unsure how to go about fixing this section so will not make any further edits without more discussion. Anditres (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)