Sources and editorial method

We distinguish research, professional guidance, current rules, described practice and our own proposals. Reading a page does not establish that all its references were checked. This edition still needs independent language and factual review.

ESSENCE — University of Gothenburg; About Autism Spectrum Disorder — CDC. English; Sweden / USA. Relevant explanatory passages read on 4 October 2026. We do not adopt numerical estimates or import US rules into Greece.

NICE CG128, CG170 and NG87 are English-language UK clinical recommendations. On 27 October 2026 we directly read the relevant recommendations on assessment and review (CG128 §§1.5–1.6), coordinated support and reassessment (CG170 §§1.1–1.4), and medication monitoring and review (NG87 §§1.8 and 1.10). This updates the earlier indexed-only access record; it is not a complete review of the evidence behind every recommendation.

They are useful benchmarks for questions to professionals, not proof of Greek entitlement or service delivery. Selected guidance and reading help.

What is Neurodiversity?; The 4 D’s. Genius Within C.I.C.; English; UK. Both complete pages read on 4 October 2026; no publication date displayed.

Provider explanations, not primary clinical evidence. We do not treat client percentages as population estimates, adopt broad claims about strengths or mechanisms, or import UK funding rules. The four-term grouping is not used as a diagnostic category. Graphic reproduction rights have not been verified.

Cadenas et al. (2020): across two samples, high-IQ participants with ADHD performed overall at the level of average-IQ controls. This supports concern about overlooked difficulties, not a claim of universally greater psychological harm.

Alvares et al. (2020): IQ alone was an imprecise proxy for adaptive functioning in a sample of autistic children. Absence of intellectual disability is not the same as exceptional intelligence.

Checked 4 October 2026: Cadenas abstract, background, parts of methods and discussion/limitations; Alvares PubMed abstract. We do not claim to have reviewed either complete paper or its supplements.

Bellaert et al. (2024): a longitudinal study links peer experiences with later inattention and irritability. Publisher-indexed abstract read. Association does not prove the complete proposed causal pathway.

Scottish neurodevelopmental service specification, Appendix 1 (2021): recognises combined needs and support informed by the profile. Relevant passages read on 4 October 2026. A policy precedent in another country, not a Greek entitlement or proof of full implementation.

For a correction, email [email protected] with the page, the wording and a checkable source. Please do not send children’s records or identifying family accounts. See how we handle email.

Miodovnik et al. (2015) and Kentrou et al. (2019) associate an earlier ADHD diagnosis with later autism recognition in different US and Dutch samples. The observational studies do not establish the cause of every delay or supply Greek estimates. Abstracts were read, with access limits recorded in the research register.

Young et al. (2020) address joint assessment, support and monitoring. Relevant passages were read. This is expert consensus, not a clinical trial.

Shakeshaft et al. examine different joint ADHD–autistic trait trajectories; Sibley et al. examine fluctuating ADHD status through repeated assessments. Abstracts were read; neither study predicts an individual child’s course.

Rai et al. examine depressive symptoms and bullying in longitudinal data. Relevant passages were read. This does not establish one cause for every depression. NICE review and transition recommendations were read in official indexed passages; they are not Greek entitlement rules.

The new stigma page identifies its Greek and Hong Kong samples and the limits of transferring findings. The curated resources identify relevant NICE sections, audience, jurisdiction and the read extent checked on 25 October 2026. The practical guide distinguishes US response guidance, UK clinical guidance and the official Greek reporting route. The bullying and exclusion guide and the family-background page list their own sources and access limits.

The parent-recounted psychiatrist comparison is retained as an attributed personal account and analogy. It is not a quantified comparison of neurological processing. Working questions about future needs are not predictions of an individual diagnosis. Practical prompts and proposals for accountability are editorial applications; they are not presented as experimentally validated interventions.

The glossary distinguishes research on clinical bias, commentary on language in autism research, community preferences and practical guidance. It states where a choice is editorial rather than an established clinical term. Words we choose and why.