Asperger Syndrome and Autism: History, Classification, and Identity

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 18, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Cluster Autism and Adult Neurodiversity · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Asperger Syndrome and Autism: What Is the Difference Today?

Asperger syndrome was a historical diagnostic category used to describe some autistic people whose early development did not include clinically significant general language or cognitive delay. Under DSM-5, published in 2013, Asperger's disorder ceased to be a separate diagnostic category and became part of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). DSM-5-TR retains that framework. The World Health Organization's ICD-11 likewise organizes autism within a unified spectrum, with qualifiers describing specific developmental and communication characteristics rather than a separate Asperger diagnosis. People may nevertheless retain “Asperger” or “Aspie” as a personally meaningful identity or as the name of a diagnosis recorded years earlier. CDC diagnosis overview; WHO clinical descriptions for ICD-11.

The distinction involves three different questions. Historically, what did the category mean, and why was it created? Clinically, what evidence and classification criteria should an assessor use today? Socially, how does a change of terminology affect people who built a sense of identity and community around the former diagnosis? These questions need different kinds of evidence. Historical archives establish how a name developed. Diagnostic research examines consistency and clinical validity. Interviews and surveys investigate identity, preferences, and stigma. A scientifically adequate account preserves all three dimensions. Smith and Jones, 2020; NICE CG142.

An important misconception is that Asperger syndrome was simply “mild autism,” or that everyone formerly given the label would now necessarily be assigned the same autism support level. Early spoken-language history, intellectual functioning, conversational fluency, sensory regulation, mental health, adaptive skills, and need for assistance can vary independently. People who speak fluently or excel academically may have major support needs. People who communicate without speech may have substantial understanding and decision-making abilities. A historical category cannot summarize the full individual profile. Lord et al., 202201541-5).

The History of Autism Before Asperger Syndrome

Grunya Sukhareva and the earliest detailed descriptions

In 1925, psychiatrist Grunya Sukhareva published clinical accounts of children whose developmental patterns resemble features now included within autism spectrum disorder. A German-language report appeared in 1926, and further descriptions included girls. These historical papers were written using early twentieth-century psychiatric terminology, so they should be interpreted in their own context instead of retroactively transformed into certain modern diagnoses. Nevertheless, historical research establishes that the conceptual history of autism began before the better-known publications of Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger. Sher and Gibson, 2023; 2025 historical study.

Sukhareva's contribution is especially important for understanding how medical histories are constructed. Translation, professional networks, political institutions, and the international circulation of journals influence which researchers receive enduring credit. Her descriptions also remind historians that accounts of developmental social and behavioral differences did not originate from one person or one clinic. The term “schizoid psychopathy,” used in that period, belonged to an earlier classification vocabulary and should not be conflated with a modern personality-disorder diagnosis. Historical analysis.

Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger

Leo Kanner's influential 1943 paper described children with early developmental differences in social engagement and behavior. Hans Asperger, working in Vienna, discussed children he called “autistic psychopaths” in 1938 and published a fuller clinical account in 1944. The word “psychopathy” in this historical expression reflected the psychiatric terminology of its time and does not imply the contemporary concept of antisocial psychopathy. Asperger described distinctive social interaction, interests, language style, movement, and widely varying abilities. Czech, 2018.

The two clinical traditions differed in emphasis and in the kinds of patients whose stories entered the literature. These differences helped shape later categories, but a difference between two selected case series is insufficient evidence for a stable separation into biological conditions. Later researchers had to ask whether diagnostic assignment was reproducible, whether the groups shared underlying features, and whether subtype labels predicted outcomes. The evolution of autism classification grew partly from those difficulties. Classification review.

Lorna Wing and the English-language diagnosis

British psychiatrist Lorna Wing's 1981 paper, “Asperger's syndrome: a clinical account,” brought the label to a wider English-language professional audience. Wing described clinical features and explicitly argued for locating the syndrome within a wider group of conditions involving social interaction, communication, and imagination. Her article contributed both to the increasing use of the eponym and to a broader conception of the autism spectrum. Wing, 1981.

The terminology made certain experiences more recognizable. Adults whose early school records or present appearance failed to match a narrow stereotype of childhood autism could encounter a name that appeared to explain persistent differences. Yet usefulness in recognition and validity as an independent medical subtype are distinct matters. A name can improve access to conversation and community while researchers continue to examine its scientific boundaries. Wing, 1981; Smith and Jones, 2020.

How Asperger Syndrome Entered Diagnostic Classification

DSM-IV and the older language-development distinction

DSM-IV, released in 1994, recognized Asperger's disorder as a distinct category within the pervasive developmental disorders. Its defining differences from autistic disorder included the absence of clinically significant general language delay and general cognitive developmental delay. A diagnosis still involved clinically significant social-interaction difficulties and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior or interests. The diagnostic term therefore never simply described intelligence, introversion, unusual interests, or an awkward conversational style. DSM classification review.

The developmental distinction could be difficult to establish, particularly years later. Some children experienced early language delays but subsequently became fluent speakers; others lacked complete childhood records. Two adults with similar present characteristics might have received different labels because a clinician had interpreted an early milestone differently. Selection of participants for research further amplified these problems: comparing samples partly defined by language history naturally produces language-related group differences, but these differences alone do not prove two unrelated neurodevelopmental conditions. Diagnostic classification review.

ICD-10 and the continuing presence of F84.5

WHO's ICD-10 classified Asperger syndrome under F84.5. Remarkably, its definition described the category as having uncertain nosological validity even while identifying an absence of general language and cognitive delay as a key historical differentiator. The old code still appears in records and certain national administrative systems, including contexts using ICD-10-based classifications. A code found on an insurance or medical document does not automatically establish the status of that name in the latest scientific diagnostic framework. WHO ICD-10 F84.5.

Clinical manuals and national coding systems serve overlapping but different functions. The WHO's ICD-11 came into effect on January 1, 2022, but member states have different implementation schedules, and the WHO permits continued ICD-10 use during transition. A historical Asperger label can therefore remain administratively visible after the broader clinical classification has changed. The responsible interpretation identifies the country, date, and specific classification used. WHO ICD-11 implementation.

Why DSM-5 Removed Asperger's Disorder as a Separate Category

DSM-5 replaced earlier categories including autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified with the broader autism spectrum disorder. The current framework focuses on patterns of social communication and interaction together with restricted or repetitive behavior, activities, and interests, considered in their developmental and functional context. DSM-5-TR retains the overarching diagnostic architecture and permits clinical characterization of the individual's particular presentation. CDC clinical guidance; subtype review.

One scientific argument for the change was difficulty establishing reliable, stable boundaries among the old labels. Studies described substantial clinical overlap, variation between diagnostic centers, and limited ability of historical subtype names to predict longer-term development. A unified category could accommodate shared diagnostic features while allowing additional descriptions of language, cognitive development, co-occurring conditions, and current functional needs. This was a classification decision informed by research; it was not a claim that all autistic people are the same. DSM-5 classification review; Lancet Commission01541-5).

What remains debated about the change

The scientific debate was substantive. Some reviews reported systematic differences between groups assigned Asperger's disorder and autistic disorder under previous classifications. A review of comparative research argued that certain quantitative and qualitative differences warranted retaining distinct clinical subgroups. Other assessments emphasized how historical selection rules, overlapping profiles, and inconsistent diagnostic assignment limited the predictive value of the categories. Demonstrating average group differences does not, by itself, demonstrate a separate biological disorder. Research must additionally establish reproducible classification and clinical usefulness. Tsai and Ghaziuddin, 2013; subtype assessment.

There were also concerns about the impact of revised diagnostic thresholds. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies reported fewer cases meeting DSM-5 ASD criteria than earlier criteria in the selected study populations, with an estimated pooled reduction of 20.8%. Study setting, sample composition, diagnostic method, and comparison rules materially influence these results. The estimate should not be interpreted as the proportion of all previously diagnosed autistic adults who inevitably lose their diagnosis or services. It instead identifies a practical reason to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, equity, and access to support as systems change. Kulage et al., 2020.

Further research into meaningful autism subgroups remains legitimate and important. Genetics, developmental trajectories, adaptive skills, sensory processing, language, and co-occurring conditions may support useful future models. A proposed subgroup must be validated on its own evidence and shown to improve understanding or care. It cannot acquire scientific validity solely because its name resembles a historical diagnosis. Lord et al., 202201541-5).

ICD-11: Autism Spectrum Disorder and Individual Qualifiers

ICD-11 assigns autism spectrum disorder the family of codes 6A02. The clinical framework specifies, as relevant, whether a disorder of intellectual development is present and the level of functional language impairment. This describes dimensions of an individual's clinical profile rather than reconstructing the former Asperger syndrome category. The resulting description can distinguish people with similar observable autistic characteristics but different communication and cognitive support needs. WHO ICD-11 clinical descriptions.

Neither the ICD-11 qualifiers nor DSM-5-TR support-level specifiers can be converted mechanically from a historical Asperger diagnosis. A person's current abilities, communication preferences, adaptive functioning, associated conditions, and environmental demands must be assessed. Someone who speaks at length or has an advanced degree can still need substantial help with sensory overload, daily organization, social vulnerability, or mental health. Conversely, someone who uses alternative communication deserves an assessment of capacities that does not equate speech with intelligence. NICE CG142.

Did Asperger Syndrome Mean Autism Without Language Delay?

The absence of clinically significant early general language delay was a central historical distinction. It did not mean that adult communication would be effortless. A fluent speaker may have difficulties interpreting indirect meaning, coordinating conversational turns under high cognitive demands, recognizing social expectations, or communicating while overwhelmed. Speech development, pragmatic communication, receptive comprehension, and adaptive communication are related but different domains. A childhood milestone rule is therefore a poor substitute for examining how an adult currently communicates. NICE CG142; Lord et al., 202201541-5).

The reverse inference is equally unreliable: childhood language delay does not provide a comprehensive prediction of adult abilities. Speech and cognitive development can change, and the opportunities to communicate are shaped by education, accessibility, environmental support, and co-occurring conditions. Modern practice should specify functional language and preferred modes of communication rather than assigning an overall ranking of people based on speech. WHO ICD-11 descriptions.

Intelligence, Strengths, and Support Needs

The popular image of Asperger syndrome as a profile of unusually gifted people is an oversimplification. Earlier diagnostic rules concerned the absence of general cognitive developmental delay, not a requirement of giftedness. Autism includes diverse cognitive profiles and sometimes striking strengths in particular domains, while intellectual ability and adaptive functioning remain different constructs. Educational success cannot be used as a diagnostic shortcut. Equally, substantial communication differences or disability must not be interpreted as proof of limited understanding or human worth. Lancet Commission01541-5).

Needs change with context. An adult may perform excellently in a specialist professional role yet find public transport, abrupt changes in plans, household tasks, medical appointments, or unstructured social events exhausting. Another may navigate everyday routines independently but require extensive communication accommodations in healthcare. The appropriate clinical formulation names the task, barrier, environment, and desired support. Older divisions into “high-functioning” and “low-functioning” fail to convey this complexity and risk concealing real needs. NICE CG142.

Was Asperger Syndrome a Separate Biological Condition?

No validated diagnostic biomarker currently establishes a discrete Asperger biological type in routine clinical assessment. The historical category was defined by observed developmental patterns, especially the presence or absence of certain language and cognitive delays. Neurobiological and genetic research examines heterogeneous processes across the autism spectrum, but differences in group means do not automatically separate individuals into two natural kinds. A clinically meaningful subtype requires reliable identification, replication, an interpretable developmental course, and evidence of added value for prognosis or care. Classification review; Lord et al., 202201541-5).

This point also affects interpretation of research. If one study recruits participants diagnosed under DSM-IV and another recruits under DSM-5-TR, their populations may differ because the selection rules changed. Longitudinal interpretation requires attention to recruitment dates, early language histories, intellectual assessments, demographics, and co-occurring conditions. Scientific evidence about historical Asperger samples can remain useful, provided the original operational definitions stay visible and conclusions are not generalized beyond their evidence. Kulage et al., 2020.

Hans Asperger and Nazi-Era Vienna: Historical Accountability

Hans Asperger's name also carries an ethical history. Historian Herwig Czech's 2018 archival study examined personnel files, medical assessments, contemporary publications, and institutional records from Nazi-era Vienna. Czech documented Asperger's collaboration with aspects of the Nazi racial-hygiene apparatus, including actions connected to the child “euthanasia” program. The study challenged narratives depicting Asperger as an uncomplicated defender of disabled children. The relevant evidence consists of archival documents and specific historical actions, not a speculative inference from the fact that Asperger lived in Austria during the period. Czech, 2018.

Historical precision matters. The archival record supports findings of accommodation and complicity and requires discussion of specific professional referrals and institutional policies. It does not authorize inventing undocumented episodes or assuming every aspect of an individual's conduct is equally established. The editors of Molecular Autism published an accompanying statement emphasizing the importance of examining this evidence. This history is one reason many clinicians and autistic people now prefer autism terminology to an eponym associated with Nazi-era child persecution. Czech, 2018; Molecular Autism editorial.

Personal identity, however, has its own time course. An adult given an Asperger diagnosis in childhood may have used the word for years to understand school experiences, build friendships, or locate a community. The person's reaction to learning the eponym's history may include changing terms, continuing to use a historical description, or separating clinical language from personal identity. Historical accountability can be combined with respect for how actual people describe their lives. Smith and Jones, 2020.

The history also asks who gets represented in medical narratives. Reconsidering the eponym alongside the much earlier work of Sukhareva illuminates how national politics, publication networks, gender, and institutional hierarchies shape the development of categories. Scientific historiography is strongest when it restores documentary evidence and the voices of people affected by professional decisions. Historical Sukhareva review; Czech, 2018.

Asperger, Aspie, and Autistic Identity

For some adults, “Asperger” or “Aspie” is a familiar form of self-description. It may represent an original diagnosis, a supportive peer group, or a turning point when seemingly disconnected experiences became understandable. For others, the broader term “autistic” feels more accurate and more inclusive. Research documents multiple trajectories rather than one inevitable response to the change in DSM classification. A qualitative study of 12 adults diagnosed with Asperger's under older criteria found different reactions to the category's removal, related in part to their processes of identity formation. Its small sample provides detailed testimony, not a population-wide proportion. Smith and Jones, 2020.

An international mixed-methods study of autism-related terminology found preferences shaped by earlier diagnoses, stigma, community membership, and the meaning people attached to different expressions. Some respondents associated “Aspie” with personal history and distinctive support needs. Other respondents objected to uses of the term that implied a hierarchy in which people with greater support needs were valued less. It is essential to distinguish the meaning one person gives a word from assumptions imposed on every person who uses it. Keating et al., 2023.

A systematic review of autistic diagnostic identity analyzed research on how people integrate a diagnosis into their self-understanding and social relationships. It identified varied processes involving the age of recognition, the surrounding social world, and experiences of stigma and belonging. Positive identification can be meaningful, yet the evidence does not justify prescribing one emotional reaction or identity label to every adult. Gray et al., 2024.

Identity-first and person-first language

“Autistic person” and “person with autism” are common identity-first and person-first forms. Preferences vary across individuals and settings. An Australian study involving 198 adults with autism diagnoses found associations between preferred terminology, autism identity, and stigma experiences; it does not establish a universal preference. Clinical writing should maintain diagnostic accuracy, while conversations should respect the relevant person's stated preferences. Bury et al., 2023.

The term “neurodiversity” describes human variation in neurocognitive development and functioning, and names a related research and social discourse. “Neurodivergent” is a descriptive, nonclinical term. Neither can replace a specific diagnosis when clinical care, documentation, or differential assessment requires one. These concepts can coexist with autism identification and with honest acknowledgment of disability, distress, and functional support needs. Pellicano and den Houting, 2022.

What Happens to an Old Asperger Diagnosis?

An earlier Asperger diagnosis is relevant medical and developmental history. In a present-day adult evaluation, clinicians may review the old records, the criteria used at the time, developmental evidence, present autism characteristics, functioning, and other possible explanations. The change in classification alone does not show that the original evaluation was mistaken; nor does every old label automatically settle every current administrative requirement. Appropriate documentation depends on the person's clinical profile and on the healthcare system in which it is used. NICE CG142.

Assessment, screening, and diagnosis

Adult autism evaluation considers persistent social-communication characteristics, restricted or repetitive patterns, developmental onset, sensory experiences, functioning, and alternative or co-occurring conditions. NICE recommends a comprehensive process conducted by appropriately trained professionals, considering available early developmental records, direct assessment, adaptive needs, and physical and mental health. Structured assessment instruments can inform the process, but no questionnaire score establishes a diagnosis independently. NICE CG142.

Some people recognize autistic traits through personal reflection or online accounts before they have access to formal assessment. That recognition can be personally significant, and practical accommodations can sometimes be pursued in advance of a formal diagnosis. It still differs from a completed clinical evaluation. Assessment may need to disentangle overlapping experiences involving ADHD, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, trauma, language differences, or other conditions. One visible behavior can serve different functions in different individuals; classification depends on history and context, not simply surface resemblance. NICE CG142; OCD versus autism.

Gender, culture, and camouflaging

Older clinical samples influenced expectations about whom autism affects and how it appears. Adults whose presentation differs from common stereotypes may have been overlooked or assigned different explanations earlier in life. Some people compensate for or conceal observable autistic characteristics during social interaction, an experience often described as camouflaging. These observations support careful assessment of developmental history and the costs of adaptation, but they should not be converted into assumptions that every member of a gender or cultural group presents in the same way. NICE CG142; autism masking research overview.

Social expectations about eye contact, conversational directness, independence, and acceptable behavior vary with cultural setting. Language differences, socioeconomic barriers, and limited access to clinicians familiar with adult autism can further complicate recognition. A good assessment adapts its communication and environment to the person and records uncertainty where evidence is incomplete, instead of relying on a stereotyped picture of “an Asperger adult.” Lancet Commission01541-5).

Care, Medication, and Support After the Name Change

The replacement of an older diagnosis does not create a need to change effective individualized support solely because the label has changed. Clinical care addresses communication accessibility, sensory needs, functional goals, health, social participation, and co-occurring conditions. Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition; medications may be indicated for certain co-occurring medical or psychiatric problems, but NICE advises against routine antipsychotic or antidepressant treatment of the core characteristics of autism itself. The reason for each intervention and its expected benefit should be clear. NICE CG142.

“Neurodiversity-affirming” support is most useful when translated into concrete practice: accessible appointments, understandable explanations, informed consent, reasonable sensory modifications, collaborative goals, and care adapted for co-occurring difficulties. Respecting autistic identity and recognizing clinically significant disability are compatible responsibilities. The diagnostic name provides context; the treatment or accommodation plan must identify what the person actually needs. Pellicano and den Houting, 2022; NICE CG142.

In employment and education, some documentation still uses the historical term. An adult may need a clinician to explain how the former diagnosis relates to current autism terminology, while accommodations should address specific functional barriers. Examples include written instructions, predictable schedules, sensory adjustments, quiet work areas, modified interview processes, or accessible communication. Legal and administrative eligibility rules depend on the relevant jurisdiction; a historical label cannot independently determine entitlement or capability. NICE employment guidance; workplace accommodations overview.

Reading Scientific Studies That Use the Asperger Label

Scientific papers published under older DSM or ICD systems may identify participants as having Asperger's disorder, autistic disorder, or another pervasive developmental disorder. That classification is part of the study's method. Researchers and readers should check the original diagnostic rules, recruitment setting, participant ages, intellectual and language profiles, and dates of assessment. Otherwise, differences arising from sample selection may be mistaken for fundamental differences between natural biological kinds. Classification review.

A historical sample may still yield important knowledge about adulthood, life-course outcomes, identity, or educational experience. Comparability must be established rather than presumed. Contemporary literature reviews can report the original label, explain how it relates to current criteria, and conduct sensitivity analyses where samples differ. This preserves the scientific record while avoiding false precision about correspondence between older and newer diagnoses. Kulage et al., 2020; Lord et al., 202201541-5).

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Asperger syndrome still an official diagnosis?

Asperger's disorder is no longer a separate DSM-5-TR diagnostic category. ICD-11 uses autism spectrum disorder, while historical records and some ICD-10-based national administrative systems may still show the older name or code. The meaning of a document depends on the system and date. CDC; WHO.

Does a previous Asperger diagnosis mean someone is autistic?

Many people with an older Asperger diagnosis are now understood within the autism spectrum. A contemporary clinician interprets earlier records alongside current developmental and clinical evidence when formal documentation is required. The original diagnosis retains historical value. NICE CG142.

Is Asperger syndrome the same as level 1 autism?

There is no automatic one-to-one correspondence. The former category was defined partly by early developmental language and cognitive history; current support specifiers describe particular domains and present clinical characteristics. Functional needs must be assessed independently. Lord et al., 202201541-5).

Does Asperger syndrome always imply high intelligence?

No. The historical definition did not require giftedness. Intelligence, spoken language, specialized skills, and adaptive functioning are separate dimensions and vary across autistic people. Classification review.

Why do some autistic people reject the word Asperger?

Reasons include historical research on Hans Asperger's Nazi-era conduct, concerns about hierarchies within the autistic community, and preference for a shared autism identity. Others retain the historical name because it connects to their own life and original diagnosis. Evidence shows varied perspectives. Czech, 2018; Keating et al., 2023.

Can an online Asperger test confirm a diagnosis?

No. Screening questionnaires and online descriptions cannot establish a formal autism diagnosis on their own. Comprehensive adult assessment considers developmental history, current characteristics, differential diagnosis, and functioning. NICE CG142.

How should I refer to a person who calls themselves Aspie?

Ask which language the person prefers. In medical and scientific writing, use accurate current diagnostic terminology while retaining the historical term when the person's original diagnosis or the history of classification is relevant. Bury et al., 2023.

Conclusion

Asperger syndrome is a historically significant classification and identity term within the history of autism. Its movement into the wider autism spectrum framework reflected substantial scientific debate about diagnostic validity, overlapping characteristics, and how best to represent developmental variation. Today, clinical precision requires individualized assessment and description of communication, cognitive development, sensory characteristics, functioning, co-occurring conditions, and support. Historical precision requires recognition of early work by Grunya Sukhareva and careful acknowledgment of Hans Asperger's documented conduct in Nazi-era Vienna. Respect for identity requires understanding that people attach different meanings to a name that shaped their lives. These strands together provide a more accurate scientific and human history of the diagnosis. Wing, 1981; Czech, 2018; Smith and Jones, 2020.

Related Articles

Autism Spectrum Disorder: DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 Diagnostic Criteria — the detailed current diagnostic framework.

Autism Support Needs and Diagnostic Levels: Meaning and Limitations — why present-day support specifications require context.

Adult Autism Screening Tests: AQ-10, RAADS-R, and Clinical Limits — the role of screening in adult assessment.

Self-Identified Autism and Formal Diagnosis: Evidence and Decisions — self-recognition and formal clinical evaluation.

Autism in Women: Signs, Masking, and Diagnostic Bias — how recognition depends on clinical expectations.

OCD vs Autism: Compulsions, Routines, Restricted Interests, and Sensory Behaviors — differential diagnosis and behavior function.

References

Bury, S. M., Jellett, R., Haschek, A., Wenzel, M., Hedley, D., and Spoor, J. R. (2023). Understanding language preference: Autism knowledge, experience of stigma and autism identity. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221142383

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025, reviewed 2026). Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/autism/diagnosis/index.html

Czech, H. (2018). Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and “race hygiene” in Nazi-era Vienna. Molecular Autism, 9, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6

Gray, S. M., McMorris, C. A., Mudry, T. E., and McCrimmon, A. W. (2024). An exploration of diagnostic identity for autistic individuals: A systematic review of existing literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 114, 102394. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946724000692

Keating, C. T., Hickman, L., Leung, J., Monk, R., Montgomery, A., Heath, H., and Sowden, S. (2023). Autism-related language preferences of English-speaking individuals across the globe: A mixed methods investigation. Autism Research, 16, 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2864

Kulage, K. M., Smaldone, A. M., and Cohn, E. G. (2014). How will DSM-5 affect autism diagnosis? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 1918–1932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2065-2

Kulage, K. M., Goldberg, J., Usseglio, J., Romero, D., Bain, J. M., and Smaldone, A. M. (2020). How has DSM-5 affected autism diagnosis? A 5-year follow-up systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50, 2102–2127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03967-5

Lord, C., Charman, T., Havdahl, A., and colleagues. (2022). The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism. The Lancet, 399, 271–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01541-501541-5)

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2012, updated 2021). Autism spectrum disorder in adults: Diagnosis and management (CG142). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg142/chapter/Recommendations

Pellicano, E., and den Houting, J. (2022). Annual Research Review: Shifting from “normal science” to neurodiversity in autism science. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9298391/

Sher, D. A., and Gibson, J. L. (2023). Pioneering, prodigious and perspicacious: Grunya Efimovna Sukhareva’s life and contribution to conceptualising autism and schizophrenia. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01875-7

Smith, O. A., and Jones, S. C. (2020). “Coming out” with autism: Identity in people with an Asperger's diagnosis after DSM-5. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50, 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04294-5

Tsai, L. Y., and Ghaziuddin, M. (2014). DSM-5 ASD moves forward into the past. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1870-3

Wing, L. (1981). Asperger's syndrome: A clinical account. Psychological Medicine, 11(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700053332

World Health Organization. (2019). ICD-10 Asperger syndrome (F84.5). https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en/GetConcept?ConceptId=F84.5

World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/375767/9789240077263-eng.pdf?sequence=1

World Health Organization. (2026). ICD-11 implementation: Frequently asked questions. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/icd-11-implementation