Nosological and genetic aspects of Asperger syndrome.

Eisenmajer et al. (1998) looked at early family and twin studies on Asperger syndrome. They asked if Asperger syndrome sits apart from classic autism in its genes.

The paper is a narrative review. It pulls together small genetic studies done before 1998. It ends by saying bigger, cleaner studies are still needed.

The authors saw hints that Asperger families carry different mental-health risks. Depression and bipolar illness showed up more often than in autism families.

They warned these hints are weak. Sample sizes were tiny and rules for deciding who had Asperger varied. They called the picture promising but not proven.

Sharma et al. (2012) later weighed the same question with 14 extra years of data. They found the old DSM-IV checklists for Asperger and autism overlap too much. Their verdict: the labels cannot be split reliably, so the field should drop the split. This 2012 view supersedes the 1998 wait-and-see stance.

Ghaziuddin (2005) gave the 1998 idea a quick test. In a small case series, Asperger families did show higher rates of depression and schizophrenia than high-functioning autism families. The pattern matches the 1998 hunch, but the numbers stay small.

Ghaziuddin et al. (2004) added IQ data. Asperger kids scored higher on verbal IQ than matched autism controls. Again, the direction fits the 1998 distinct-profile idea, yet individual scores overlap too much for clear cut-offs.

For you as a BCBA, the takeaway is simple: treat the skills in front of you, not the historical label. The 1998 paper hoped genes would cleanly separate Asperger from autism. Later work shows the labels blur. Use current DSM-5 autism criteria, note verbal strengths or mood risks where they appear, and write goals that fit the person, not the obsolete subtype.