>>12830851Found the source:
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.268I found this section in the paper's summary to be interesting:
>The continued high prevalence of schizophrenia and autism>despite this strong negative selection, in combination with>the aforementioned association with increased parental>age, suggests that a high rate of de novo mutations may>be maintaining these disorders in the population.If I'm not mistaken, they're suggesting that autism manages to stick around through being caused by random mutations, which supports what
>>12819152 said. i.e. it doesn't actually get passed down very often at all, or at least individuals who have it aren't passing it on, and its incidence rate is equal to the rate at which autism-causing mutations occur.
I think this makes sense in light of the additive model that I described here:
>>12819494 where individuals might pass down genes which themselves don't cause autism, but are susceptible to autism-causing mutations. So then it's "more 'tism genes, more 'tism", but "more 'tism-adjacent genes, more 'tism mutations".
