Back

Synaptic density imaging associates with performance but not self-report in autism

Naples, A. J.; Cayir, S.; cukar-capizzi, C.; Wolf, J. M.; Mcclelland, J. E.; Robertson, E. C.; Sawant, S. S.; Matuskey, D.; McPartland, J.

2026-10-06 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.10.05.755105 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Autism is a common neurodevelopmental condition with considerable between-person variability and unknown biological etiology. Diagnosis of autism in adults relies on measurement of performance (e.g., clinician rating of social behavior, standardized assessment of cognition) and self-report of autism features. Our prior work revealed a strong relationship between clinician ratings of social function in autism and in vivo measures of synaptic density as measured by [11C]UCB-J PET (Matuskey et al., 2025). However, it is not understood how the measured aspects of the autism phenotype index underlying biology. Here, in a sample of 12 autistic adults, we address this question by relating synaptic density imaging to a range of performance measures, such as cognition and face recognition, in contrast to self-report measures. Our results identify a dissociation between these measurement types in that synaptic density correlates strongly with measures of performance but shows virtually no relationship with self-report. These findings suggest that, while self-report and performance measures share variance in characterizing phenotypes in autism, they diverge when mapping onto the underlying biology. Results suggest that higher synaptic density may index a general mechanism that facilitates social and cognitive performance across a range of tasks. These data also indicate that performance and self-report measures are not interchangeable in capturing brain-behavior correspondences in autism, a finding that can guide measure selection in future biomarker studies and clinical research.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.