The paper marks the second retraction for one of the co-authors.

These scores — composite measures of a person’s autism-linked common genetic variants — cannot predict an autism diagnosis but could help researchers better understand the condition’s underlying biology.

The papers were flagged by a method that has now been called into question.

This week on social media, scientists discussed a new tool to quantify motion in 3D and responded to the announcement of the launch of Imaging Neuroscience.

Experiments offer clues to why certain mutations are associated with autism in some people and not others.

New data from clinical trials of arbaclofen and oxytocin underscore the murkiness of null results. Plus, researchers seek clarity on the neurodevelopmental effects of oxytocin during childbirth.

Autistic toddlers who receive a personalized intervention at about 18 months of age gain more abilities than those who start the therapy nine months later.

Several studies caught researchers’ attention on social media this week, including one that compared gene expression in living versus postmortem samples of the human brain.

The findings add to the growing evidence that genes with disparate functions can play similar roles in brain development.

The chimeric mouse model could provide a more realistic way to study microglia’s roles in brain conditions such as autism.