New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

New study challenges an old assumption about autism diagnosis

Boys are more likely to be diagnosed as autistic as children—but by adulthood, that trend changes, according to a new study in Sweden

Mother walking daughter to school on a sunny day

alvaro gonzalez/Getty

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, boys are about three times more likely to be diagnosed as autistic than girls are. Scientists have sought an answer as to why that imbalance exists: some have argued it is to do with male and female brains; others have proposed that genetic differences or some other biological factor could hold an answer. And there is evidence that some girls and women are misdiagnosed—or missed altogether.

But a new study involving millions of people in Sweden shows women and men are almost equally as likely to be diagnosed with autism by adulthood—suggesting younger girls may be underdiagnosed and possibly missing out on critical care.

Scientists followed 2.7 million children born in Sweden between 1985 and 2020, about 2.8 percent of whom had been diagnosed as autistic by 2022. In early childhood, boys were much more likely to receive an autism diagnosis. But as the cohort aged, the researchers identified a “catch-up” effect—by age 20, women were almost just as likely to have received an autism diagnosis as men. The research was published in the BMJ.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Lollipop chart compares rates of autism diagnosis in male and female individuals by age group

The study is “interesting” and “well done,” says David Mandell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, who points to the study’s 35-year period and extensive dataset.

Gina Rippon, a professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University in England and author of the book The Lost Girls of Autism, agrees. The results are “powerful” and “sound,” Rippon says. “This is a really rigid, perhaps classically Scandinavian-type study, where the data is amazing data, collected over time, valid, reliable, etcetera.”

Indeed, because the study relied on clinical diagnoses, its findings may in fact be a “conservative” estimate of autism rates among women, she adds.

It’s not totally clear what may be driving the early diagnosis gap between boys and girls. One possibility is “systemic biases in diagnosis,” wrote patient and patient advocate Anne Cary in a related BMJ editorial. In other words, the way clinicians diagnose autism may be missing girls. Girls, “out of instinct or necessity,” may also be masking the condition.

And that has real consequences. Delayed diagnoses can mean that autistic people have to work harder to get the right treatment and may be misdiagnosed with conditions like anxiety or ADHD in the meantime.

Rippon says the new study may be a step toward correcting that legacy. “If this study does nothing other than indicate what is going on in the recognition of autistic women, then that will be great,” she says.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe