On 2016 Nov 13, Robin P Clarke commented:

My original comment here turns out to be in error, at least partially. The authors did not make the mistake I suggested there. However, the wording of the text causes confusion. The relevant sentence in the Results is confusing because it begins with "Crude rates of being diagnosed with AD....." but then goes on to include the "fully adjusted" rates. Meanwhile the Results statement in the Abstract refers to the raised risk but without mentioning that is only the "fully adjusted" result.

A problem is that these adjustments are not facts but only theoretical inferences, unlike the crude ratios which are arguably more "factual" facts. Though as it happens I incline to reckon the adjusted ratios are the more correct; my own evidence strongly indicates that the main causal factor in modern autism is dental amalgams, and these would be more prevalent in poorer parents, hence black parents, hence the higher risk for them. (Note that older mothers would tend to have more amalgams and more mercury leaked therefrom, also adding to risk as per the adjustment rationales.)

So not an actual error here, but could have been presented a bit more clearly. Generally it's best to break up sentences into separate units rather than conglomerate them into blockbusters.

Original comment: ~~~~~~ There is clearly an error in either Table 1 or the sentences that refers to it. The results (and abstract) state:

"and 13% to 14% higher in US-born Hispanics and blacks compared with US-born white mothers (Table 1)."

And yet Table 1 shows the opposite, with the per 10,000 rate being lower in US-born Hispanics and blacks. I can only guess that someone accidentally put "higher" when they should have put "lower". This needs a correction mark in the text as otherwise people will assume that Table 1 says what that sentence does.

On 2016 Nov 13, Robin P Clarke commented:

My original comment here turns out to be in error, at least partially. The authors did not make the mistake I suggested there. However, the wording of the text causes confusion. The relevant sentence in the Results is confusing because it begins with "Crude rates of being diagnosed with AD....." but then goes on to include the "fully adjusted" rates. Meanwhile the Results statement in the Abstract refers to the raised risk but without mentioning that is only the "fully adjusted" result.

A problem is that these adjustments are not facts but only theoretical inferences, unlike the crude ratios which are arguably more "factual" facts. Though as it happens I incline to reckon the adjusted ratios are the more correct; my own evidence strongly indicates that the main causal factor in modern autism is dental amalgams, and these would be more prevalent in poorer parents, hence black parents, hence the higher risk for them. (Note that older mothers would tend to have more amalgams and more mercury leaked therefrom, also adding to risk as per the adjustment rationales.)

So not an actual error here, but could have been presented a bit more clearly. Generally it's best to break up sentences into separate units rather than conglomerate them into blockbusters.

Original comment: ~~~~~~ There is clearly an error in either Table 1 or the sentences that refers to it. The results (and abstract) state:

"and 13% to 14% higher in US-born Hispanics and blacks compared with US-born white mothers (Table 1)."

And yet Table 1 shows the opposite, with the per 10,000 rate being lower in US-born Hispanics and blacks. I can only guess that someone accidentally put "higher" when they should have put "lower". This needs a correction mark in the text as otherwise people will assume that Table 1 says what that sentence does.