GP’s TikTok reignites debate over using AQ-10 to rule out autism as NHS waits surge

A London GP’s short TikTok demonstrating prompts from the AQ-10 has prompted fresh scrutiny over claims that low scores can ‘rule out’ autism. Clinicians warn the ten-item screener is a triage tool, not a diagnosis, and say limited negative predictive value, rising adult referrals, long NHS waits and gendered camouflaging risk mean low scores should not be taken as definitive reassurance.

A London GP’s short TikTok explaining a quick autism screening tool has reignited debate about how best to spot autistic traits — and what a positive answer on a checklist actually means. The Daily Mail reported that Dr Sermed Mezher, who practises in the capital, demonstrated a set of prompts drawn from a commonly used adult questionnaire and told viewers: “Scores of six or less make autism unlikely.” The clip has been widely shared, reflecting both public interest and frustration as demand for formal assessments surges. (The original report referred to an “AQ‑19” test; the better‑known brief screener for adults is a ten‑item form.)

📌 Reference Map:

Reference Map:

Brief screening tools are designed to act as a first step, not a diagnosis. According to the Autism Research Centre, the ten‑item Adult Autism‑Spectrum Quotient (AQ‑10) was developed to flag traits that may merit a full clinical assessment; downloadable versions and scoring guidance are published for clinicians and researchers. The centre stresses that high scores indicate the presence of more autistic traits but that the questionnaire is a prompt to further investigation and should be interpreted alongside a person’s developmental history and clinical judgement.
– Paragraph 2 – ^[1], ^[2]

Academic evaluation supports that caution. A clinic‑based study of the AQ‑10 found it can have reasonable sensitivity — it picks up many people who go on to receive a diagnosis — but specificity and negative predictive value are limited, meaning a low score does not reliably exclude autism. The researchers concluded the short form cannot replace a full clinical assessment and warned against using it as the sole gatekeeper for referrals.
– Paragraph 3 – ^[3], ^[2]

That caveat matters because diagnostic demand has ballooned. NHS Digital’s official figures show that in December 2024 more than 212,900 people in England had an open referral for suspected autism and that around nine in ten had been waiting longer than the 13 weeks recommended by NICE. The National Autistic Society has summarised this data and, in a February 2025 briefing, called for urgent government action and ring‑fenced funding to tackle the backlog and the human cost of long waits.
– Paragraph 4 – ^[4], ^[5]

Part of the rise in adults seeking assessment reflects changing recognition rather than a sudden increase in prevalence. Historically, autism was seen as a predominantly male condition, but experts now point to gendered biases in assessment. Research into camouflaging — the range of strategies some autistic people, particularly females, use to mask social differences — finds higher reported levels among women and links camouflaging with worse mental‑health outcomes, including increased anxiety and depression. Those strategies can make clinical features harder to detect and help explain why many women were missed in earlier diagnostic practice.
– Paragraph 5 – ^[1], ^[6]

Public discussion has also focussed on everyday behaviours. Professor Ahmed Hankir, a UK‑based psychiatrist, highlighted in a separate social‑media overview that stimming (repetitive movements or sounds), sensory sensitivities, emotional dysregulation and intense interests are commonly reported features in autistic women — although the way those features present can differ from stereotyped male patterns. NHS guidance frames stimming and meltdowns as self‑regulation responses rather than problems to be suppressed, and offers practical advice on safety, reducing triggers and when to seek professional help.
– Paragraph 6 – ^[1], ^[7]

For clinicians and the public, the practical takeaway is straightforward: short questionnaires can be a helpful prompt but are not a substitute for a full assessment. If someone’s answers suggest autistic traits, a referral to a specialist assessment remains the appropriate next step; equally, a low score should not be taken as definitive reassurance if concerns persist. Given current backlog pressures, charities and the NHS recommend using available guidance and local support while awaiting formal assessment — and policy groups continue to press for resources to shorten the queues and broaden access to multidisciplinary diagnostic services.
– Paragraph 7 – ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[7]

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative appears to be recent, with no evidence of prior publication. The Daily Mail is a reputable source, and the inclusion of a TikTok video suggests timely content. However, the article’s URL indicates it was published on 8 August 2025, which is more than 7 days ago. This raises questions about the freshness of the content. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4988267/?utm_source=openai))

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The quotes attributed to Dr. Sermed Mezher and Professor Ahmed Hankir are not found in earlier material, suggesting they are original or exclusive. This enhances the credibility of the narrative.

Source reliability

Score:
6

Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a reputable organisation. However, the article’s URL indicates it was published on 8 August 2025, which is more than 7 days ago. This raises questions about the freshness of the content. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.

Plausability check

Score:
7

Notes:
The claims about the AQ-10 screening tool and the NHS waiting lists are plausible and supported by existing research. However, the article’s URL indicates it was published on 8 August 2025, which is more than 7 days ago. This raises questions about the freshness of the content. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary:
The narrative presents plausible claims supported by existing research. However, the article’s URL indicates it was published on 8 August 2025, which is more than 7 days ago. This raises questions about the freshness of the content. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The quotes attributed to Dr. Sermed Mezher and Professor Ahmed Hankir are not found in earlier material, suggesting they are original or exclusive. The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a reputable organisation. Given these factors, the overall assessment is OPEN with a MEDIUM confidence level.