Has any study proven fish oil treats childhood apraxia of speech?

No. As of mid-2025, no randomized controlled trial has tested fish oil in children diagnosed with CAS using speech motor outcomes as the primary measure. The Oxford-Durham study (Pediatrics, 2005) tested omega-3 supplementation in children with developmental coordination disorder, a related but different condition, and found improvements in reading, spelling, and behavior over three months.

What dose of fish oil was used in the Oxford-Durham study for motor coordination?

The Oxford-Durham trial used a daily dose of 558 mg EPA, 174 mg DHA, and 60 mg GLA from evening primrose oil, totaling roughly 732 mg of omega-3 fatty acids per day. Children aged 5 to 12 with developmental coordination disorder took it for three months. There is no established dose for CAS specifically.

Is fish oil safe for toddlers and young children with apraxia?

At typical supplemental doses (under 1 to 2 g of combined EPA and DHA per day), fish oil is generally considered safe for children and has been used in dozens of pediatric studies. The main concerns are fish or shellfish allergies and, at high doses, a mild blood-thinning effect. Get your pediatrician's approval before starting any supplement for a young child.

Can fish oil replace speech therapy for a child with apraxia?

No. Motor-based speech therapy is the only intervention with substantial clinical evidence for CAS. Intensive, frequent practice with a trained SLP is how children with apraxia build reliable motor programs for speech. Fish oil, even if it offers some support to brain health, cannot replicate the motor learning that happens in therapy sessions and daily home practice.

How long does it take for fish oil to have any effect on brain function?

Omega-3 fatty acids incorporate into cell membranes over weeks. The Oxford-Durham study ran for three months before measuring outcomes. Most researchers suggest a minimum of 12 weeks of consistent supplementation before evaluating any effect. Shorter trials are unlikely to show measurable changes in neurological function even if the supplement is genuinely doing something.

Are there specific fish oil brands recommended for children with apraxia or DCD?

No professional organization endorses a specific brand. Look for products independently tested by NSF International, USP, or ConsumerLab, which verify that actual EPA and DHA content matches the label and that the product is free from oxidation and heavy metals. The original Oxford-Durham study used Efalex by Efamol, but that specific product is not required to replicate the dose range studied.

Does omega-3 supplementation help children with autism and speech delays?

The evidence is mixed and limited. Several small trials have tested omega-3s in children with autism spectrum disorder and found modest effects on hyperactivity and some behavioral measures, but speech and language outcomes have not shown consistent improvement. A 2011 JAMA study found no significant benefit of omega-3 supplementation on core autism symptoms. Therapy remains the primary approach for speech delays in autism.

What is the difference between EPA and DHA in fish oil, and which matters more for speech?

DHA is the primary structural omega-3 in brain tissue and is especially important for gray matter development. EPA has more anti-inflammatory activity. For neurodevelopmental uses, most researchers have used combined EPA and DHA supplements rather than one alone. Neither has been studied in isolation for CAS outcomes, so no definitive answer exists on which component matters more.

Can diet changes help a child with childhood apraxia of speech?

There is no evidence that any specific diet treats CAS. Adequate overall nutrition supports brain development generally, and addressing nutritional gaps in picky eaters (common in children with sensory sensitivities) is worth doing for overall health. But no dietary intervention has been shown in trials to improve speech motor planning outcomes in children with CAS.

How is childhood apraxia of speech diagnosed, and who diagnoses it?

CAS is diagnosed by a licensed speech-language pathologist, typically through standardized assessments, observation of speech motor patterns, and a review of developmental history. A pediatrician can refer for evaluation but cannot diagnose CAS. Early, accurate diagnosis matters because the therapy approach for CAS differs from approaches used for other speech sound disorders.

What is the most effective treatment for childhood apraxia of speech?

Motor-based speech therapy approaches with the strongest evidence include Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC), Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST), and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme. Effective CAS therapy runs on high practice intensity, frequent sessions, and systematic cueing that fades over time. ASHA and Apraxia Kids both list these as the primary evidence-based options.

Should I tell my child's SLP if I am giving them fish oil?

Yes. Any supplement your child takes is relevant clinical information. While fish oil is unlikely to interfere with speech therapy, your SLP needs a complete picture of your child's health and any interventions you are trying. It also helps your SLP help you interpret changes you see, so you do not mistakenly credit therapy gains to a supplement or the other way around.

Fish oil for apraxia of speech: what the evidence actually shows

Q: What does ASHA say about using supplements for apraxia of speech?

ASHA's technical report on childhood apraxia of speech identifies evidence-based treatments as motor-based speech therapy approaches, including DTTC, ReST, and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme. Nutritional supplements do not appear on ASHA's list of supported interventions for CAS. ASHA does not specifically prohibit supplement use, but there is no endorsement.

Fish oil capsules on a wooden table near a child's breakfast bowl in morning light

Last updated 2026-07-09

TL;DR

Nobody has ever run a clinical trial testing fish oil as a treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). There's one small pilot study from 2005, the Oxford-Durham trial, which found that omega-3/omega-6 supplements improved reading and behavior in children with developmental coordination disorder, a related but different motor condition. Fish oil carries little risk, but it's not a stand-in for motor-based speech therapy, which remains the only intervention with real evidence behind it for CAS.

Why parents keep asking about fish oil

Childhood apraxia of speech is a motor speech disorder: the brain knows exactly what a child wants to say, but it struggles to plan and sequence the mouth movements needed to say it. It isn't muscle weakness, and it isn't a language problem. The words and ideas are there. The motor program to carry them out isn't. ^[1] For background on the diagnosis itself, our full explainer on childhood apraxia of speech covers the basics.

Parents land on fish oil for understandable reasons. Omega-3 fatty acids have real, well-documented effects on brain development and inflammation, so the logic feels sound. Parent communities, especially those connected to dyspraxia research in the UK, keep circulating the 2005 Oxford-Durham study, which showed genuine gains in a motor coordination population that overlaps with CAS. And plenty of families have tried everything else and want something, anything, that might help.

The honest answer: fish oil isn't a treatment for apraxia of speech in any way the research has confirmed. Whether it could play a small supporting role is a fair question though, and it deserves a real answer rather than a shrug.

What the research on omega-3s and motor speech actually shows

The most-cited study here is the Oxford-Durham randomized controlled trial, published in Pediatrics in 2005. ^[2] Researchers gave 117 children aged 5 to 12 with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) either a daily omega-3/omega-6 supplement (80% fish oil, 20% evening primrose oil) or a placebo for three months. The active group showed statistically significant gains in reading, spelling, and behavior, along with positive motor trends. Here's the nuance that tends to get lost: DCD and CAS aren't the same condition. DCD affects whole-body motor coordination, while CAS is a motor planning deficit specific to speech. The two overlap in some children and both involve trouble sequencing movement, but a study on DCD doesn't prove anything about CAS speech output.

A 2012 Cochrane review of polyunsaturated fatty acids and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children found the evidence too thin to recommend PUFAs for any specific developmental disorder, motor coordination included. ^[3] Cochrane reviews sit at the top of the evidence hierarchy, so that's a meaningful gap.

As of mid-2025, no study indexed in PubMed has used CAS as the primary diagnosis, omega-3 supplementation as the independent variable, and speech motor outcomes as the primary endpoint. That doesn't mean fish oil does nothing for CAS specifically. It means nobody has actually run the experiment.

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) technical report on CAS lists the treatments with evidence behind them: motor-based approaches like Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC), Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST), and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme. Nutritional supplements appear nowhere on that list. ^[1]

Is there a biological reason omega-3s might help?

DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), one of the main omega-3 fatty acids, is a structural building block of neuronal membranes. The human brain is roughly 60% fat by dry weight, and DHA makes up a large share of the gray matter. ^[4] Adequate DHA during development supports myelination, synaptic density, and how fast signals travel, all of which matter for motor planning. The theoretical chain goes like this: if a child has low DHA levels, supplementation might support the circuitry involved in motor sequencing, which could make it somewhat easier for speech therapy to build and stabilize motor programs. That's plausible biology. It's not proven in CAS.

There's an inflammatory angle too. Low omega-3 intake relative to omega-6 pushes the body toward a more pro-inflammatory state, and some researchers think this affects brain plasticity and learning efficiency. The connection to speech motor planning specifically is speculation at this point. ^[5]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) treats DHA as important for infant brain development and supports getting enough of it through diet, but it has not endorsed supplementation as a treatment for speech disorders. ^[6]

What Oxford-Durham found, and where it doesn't apply

The Oxford-Durham study (Richardson and Montgomery, Pediatrics, 2005) randomized 117 children with DCD to either a supplement containing 558 mg EPA, 174 mg DHA, 60 mg GLA, and 9.6 mg vitamin E per day, or an olive oil placebo. ^[2] After three months, the active group scored significantly higher on standardized reading tests (effect size around 0.67 standard deviations) and spelling (around 0.55 SD), behavior improved, and motor outcomes trended positive. The supplement itself was a specific commercial product (Efalex, from Efamol), not a generic capsule off a pharmacy shelf.

None of these children had CAS. They had DCD, diagnosed through poor coordination on tasks like throwing a ball, tying shoes, or handwriting. Some children with CAS also carry a DCD diagnosis; many don't. Applying Oxford-Durham to a child with isolated CAS and normal gross and fine motor skills is a real stretch.

For children who carry both diagnoses, or who have CAS alongside other motor difficulties, the study offers a weak signal that omega-3s might add something on top of therapy. Weak signal means it's worth a conversation with your pediatrician, not that it's worth delaying or deprioritizing therapy itself.

What dose comes up in this research

Oxford-Durham used a combined dose of roughly 732 mg of omega-3 fatty acids per day (558 mg EPA plus 174 mg DHA), plus 60 mg of gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) from evening primrose oil. ^[2] That's a moderate pediatric dose. For general reference, the Adequate Intake (AI) for omega-3s (specifically ALA) from the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements is 0.7 g/day for children aged 1 to 3 and 0.9 g/day for children aged 4 to 8. ^[7] That AI covers total omega-3 intake, which is broader than the EPA/DHA in fish oil, and none of it is a therapeutic target for any speech disorder. There's no established therapeutic dose for CAS. Any dosing decision belongs with your child's pediatrician, not a parent forum and not an article like this one.

High doses of fish oil can thin the blood and interact with anticoagulants. Above roughly 3 g/day of combined EPA plus DHA, bleeding risk ticks up, which is part of why the FDA limits over-the-counter claims and why prescription omega-3 drugs like Vascepa require physician oversight. ^[8] At the doses Oxford-Durham used, serious side effects in children are rarely reported, but check with your pediatrician first regardless.

Could it cause harm?

At typical supplemental doses (under 1 to 2 g of combined EPA and DHA per day), fish oil is considered safe for children and has a long track record in pediatric research. The practical annoyances are fishy burps, loose stools at higher doses, and a kid who refuses to take it because of the taste. The real harm to worry about isn't toxicity, it's opportunity cost. Families who pour time and money into supplements while cutting back on evidence-based motor speech therapy are putting their child at a real disadvantage. Frequent, intensive sessions with a speech-language pathologist trained in motor-based CAS approaches, backed by daily home practice, is what the evidence actually supports. ^[1]

Products vary more than parents expect. ConsumerLab and similar independent testers have found big gaps between actual EPA and DHA content and label claims, along with products that tested positive for oxidation or heavy metal contamination. If a family decides to supplement, one that's passed third-party testing is worth the extra few dollars. And if your child is in speech therapy or working with an SLP through early intervention, mention any supplements you're giving; it's relevant clinical information for them to have.

Where speech-language pathologists land on this

Most SLPs trained in CAS put fish oil in a different bucket than therapy entirely. Therapy is the treatment; supplements aren't a replacement, and no SLP should be prescribing a specific supplement as part of a CAS protocol, since neither ASHA nor Apraxia Kids endorses one. ^[9] That's not the same as saying supplements are useless. Many SLPs will simply say: if your pediatrician signs off, it's unlikely to hurt, just don't let it eat into your therapy schedule. The research on motor speech learning is clear that intensity and consistency of practice matter more than almost anything else, and children with CAS typically need frequent, short sessions packed with high numbers of movement practice trials. ^[1]

Apraxia Kids, the main nonprofit for families and professionals dealing with CAS, takes the same line: no evidence currently supports supplements as a CAS treatment, though the organization doesn't discourage families from raising options with their medical providers. ^[9] If you're trying to decide which therapy model to prioritize, our guide to apraxia of speech walks through the evidence-based approaches in more detail.

Where fish oil actually sits, once you line it up against everything else parents try, is near the top for evidence quality among the alternative options and near the bottom for cost and risk. That still doesn't make it a treatment. It makes it one of the more reasonable things to bring up with a pediatrician if a family wants to add something beyond therapy. Motor-based speech therapy (DTTC, ReST) has strong evidence behind it, multiple RCTs and systematic reviews, very low risk, and runs $150-$600+ a month depending on intensity and insurance ^[10]. Fish oil has no CAS-specific RCTs (just a weak signal from DCD studies), very low risk at typical doses, and costs $15-$50 a month. Vitamin E has no CAS evidence, low risk, $10-$30. Gluten-free or casein-free diets have no CAS-specific evidence, carry some nutritional risk if poorly planned, and cost varies. Auditory integration training has no credible CAS evidence, low risk, and runs $100-$300 per course. AAC is supported as a complement to speech therapy for functional communication, carries very low risk, and costs anywhere from free to $300+ depending on the device ^[11].

Approach	Evidence level for CAS	Risk level	Cost range (monthly)
Motor-based speech therapy (DTTC, ReST)	Strong (multiple RCTs and systematic reviews)	Very low	$150-$600+ depending on intensity and insurance ^[10]
Fish oil supplementation	No CAS-specific RCTs; weak signal from DCD studies	Very low at typical doses	$15-$50
Vitamin E supplementation	No CAS evidence	Low at typical doses	$10-$30
Gluten-free or casein-free diet	No CAS-specific evidence	Low (nutritional risk if poorly planned)	Variable
Auditory integration training	No credible CAS evidence	Low	$100-$300 per course
AAC (augmentative and alternative communication)	Supported as complement to speech therapy for functional communication	Very low	$0-$300+ depending on device ^[11]

AAC is worth pausing on. For a child whose apraxia is heavily limiting speech output, AAC devices give them a working way to communicate right away, while motor speech therapy does the slower work of building the underlying skills. If you're thinking about trying fish oil alongside therapy, start with a short conversation with your child's pediatrician before buying anything. It's fine to mention the Oxford-Durham study, since it's a real published RCT worth discussing, and ask about anything specific to your child, like a fish or shellfish allergy or medications with bleeding risk. If the doctor gives you the go-ahead, start in the range Oxford-Durham used: roughly 500 to 700 mg combined EPA and DHA per day. Look for a product that's been tested by an independent third party (NSF International, USP, or ConsumerLab certification), and give it at least 12 weeks before drawing any conclusions, since the study ran three months and omega-3s take time to work into cell membranes. Don't cut therapy sessions to pay for the supplement. Therapy is the core of treatment; the supplement is, at best, a side bet. Track what you can, too. If you start fish oil and increase therapy hours in the same month, you'll never untangle which one caused any change you see. A simple weekly log of speech observations helps here, and it doubles as useful information for therapy planning. For families going through the school system, early intervention for children under three and school-based speech services for older kids are available under IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) at no cost, and those services should come first, with supplements a distant second, if at all. If you want practice support between sessions, the Little Words app has a short quiz that pinpoints where your child is in their communication journey and what kinds of practice fit. Zinc, iron, iodine, and choline all play documented roles in brain development and have been studied across various neurodevelopmental outcomes ^[4], though none have CAS-specific trial data. Good overall nutrition matters for any child, and picky eaters (common among kids with sensory sensitivities or autism-related profiles) may have real gaps worth addressing. Vitamin D deserves its own mention: a 2021 review in Nutrients found vitamin D deficiency is common in children with autism spectrum disorder and other neurodevelopmental conditions, and some researchers have floated links to motor and language outcomes ^[12]. That's observational data, not interventional, so treat it with the usual caution. Choline is worth a closer look too, since it feeds into myelination and is a precursor to acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter central to motor learning. Eggs and liver are the richest food sources, and most pediatric multivitamins carry little or none of it. The adequate intake for choline is 200 mg/day for children aged 1 to 3 and 250 mg/day for ages 4 to 8 ^[13], and plenty of kids fall short through diet alone. Still, no study ties choline specifically to CAS outcomes. The short version: a varied, whole-food diet plus a conversation with your pediatrician about likely gaps, especially for picky eaters, is reasonable background support. It doesn't substitute for motor speech therapy, and no single nutrient fixes apraxia. CAS research has long been underfunded relative to how many kids it affects. Estimates put it at roughly 1 to 2 children per 1,000, maybe 3 to 5 percent of speech disorders seen in clinical practice, though the epidemiological data is thin ^[1]. The speech motor learning research that does exist is genuinely good: work by Edythe Strand and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic on DTTC, and by Angela Morgan and colleagues in Australia on ReST, is rigorous. What's missing is any nutritional intervention trial with CAS as the primary population. The Apraxia Kids Research Fund has been growing, and the organization keeps a research agenda ^[9]. Whether a nutrition trial ever enters that pipeline depends on researchers willing to pursue it and funders willing to pay for it. As of mid-2025, no registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov appears to be testing omega-3 supplementation in a CAS population. So here's the honest position: we don't have the data to confirm or rule out a meaningful effect of fish oil on CAS outcomes. The biologically plausible mechanism exists, and the adjacent DCD evidence is suggestive, but it doesn't transfer cleanly. Families who try fish oil under medical supervision while staying on intensive therapy aren't doing anything unreasonable. Families expecting it to replace therapy will be disappointed. For children on the autism spectrum who also show speech planning trouble, this connects to the somewhat larger body of research on autism spectrum speech therapy, though even there, no nutrition trials focus specifically on motor speech.No, nobody's actually shown that fish oil treats childhood apraxia of speech, and it's worth being clear-eyed about that before spending money on it. Here's what the research does and doesn't say, and where the real evidence for helping a child with CAS actually points. As of mid-2025, no randomized controlled trial has tested fish oil in children diagnosed with CAS using speech motor outcomes as the primary measure. The closest we have is the Oxford-Durham study (Pediatrics, 2005), which looked at omega-3 supplementation in children with developmental coordination disorder, a related but different condition, and found improvements in reading, spelling, and behavior over three months. That trial used a daily dose of 558 mg EPA, 174 mg DHA, and 60 mg GLA from evening primrose oil (roughly 732 mg of omega-3s total) in children aged 5 to 12, taken for three months. There's no established dose for CAS specifically, because CAS was never the condition being tested. At typical supplemental doses (under 1 to 2 g of combined EPA and DHA daily), fish oil is generally considered safe for children and has shown up in dozens of pediatric studies without major red flags. The main things to watch for are fish or shellfish allergies and, at higher doses, a mild blood-thinning effect. Still, check with your pediatrician before starting any supplement with a young child. It's also worth knowing where the professional bodies stand. ASHA's technical report on childhood apraxia of speech names motor-based approaches, specifically DTTC, ReST, and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme, as the evidence-based treatments. Nutritional supplements simply aren't on that list. ASHA doesn't forbid supplement use, but it doesn't endorse it either. Fish oil can't substitute for speech therapy: motor-based therapy is the only intervention with substantial clinical evidence for CAS, and the intensive, repeated practice a child does with a trained SLP is what builds reliable motor programs for speech. Even if fish oil supports brain health in some general way, it can't reproduce what happens in a therapy session or in daily home practice. If you do try it, give it time before judging results. Omega-3s incorporate into cell membranes over weeks, not days, which is why the Oxford-Durham trial ran three months before measuring anything. Most researchers suggest at least 12 weeks of consistent use before you'd expect to see any effect, and shorter trials are unlikely to show much even if something real is happening underneath. No professional organization endorses a particular brand. Instead, look for products independently tested by NSF International, USP, or ConsumerLab, which confirm the EPA and DHA content matches the label and check for oxidation and heavy metals. The original Oxford-Durham study used Efalex by Efamol, but you don't need that exact product to land in the dose range that was studied. For children with autism and speech delays, the omega-3 evidence is thinner and more mixed. Some small trials found modest effects on hyperactivity and certain behavioral measures, but speech and language outcomes haven't improved consistently. A 2011 JAMA study found no significant benefit for core autism symptoms. Therapy remains the main approach for speech delays in autism, same as it is for CAS. On the chemistry: DHA is the primary structural omega-3 in brain tissue and matters especially for gray matter development, while EPA carries more anti-inflammatory activity. Most researchers have supplemented with both together rather than isolating one, and neither has been studied alone for CAS outcomes, so there's no clear answer on which one matters more. Diet more broadly doesn't treat CAS either. Solid overall nutrition supports brain development in general, and it's worth addressing nutritional gaps in picky eaters (common among kids with sensory sensitivities), but no dietary intervention has been shown to improve speech motor planning in children with CAS. A licensed speech-language pathologist diagnoses CAS, usually through standardized assessments, observation of speech motor patterns, and a look at developmental history. A pediatrician can refer you for evaluation but can't make the diagnosis themselves, and getting it right early matters because CAS therapy looks different from therapy for other speech sound disorders. Once diagnosed, the treatments with the strongest evidence behind them are DTTC, ReST, and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme, all of which rely on high practice intensity, frequent sessions, and cueing that gradually fades. Both ASHA and Apraxia Kids point to these as the primary evidence-based options. One last thing: tell your child's SLP if you're giving them fish oil. It's unlikely to interfere with therapy, but your SLP needs the full picture of what your child is taking, and it helps them (and you) figure out what's actually driving any changes you notice, rather than crediting a supplement for progress that therapy produced, or vice versa.

Sources

ASHA, Childhood Apraxia of Speech technical report and practice portal: ASHA identifies motor-based approaches (DTTC, ReST, Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme) as the evidence-based treatments for CAS; nutritional supplements are not listed.
Richardson AJ, Montgomery P. The Oxford-Durham Study, Pediatrics, 2005: RCT of 117 children with DCD showed significant improvements in reading, spelling, and behavior after 3 months of omega-3/omega-6 supplementation (558 mg EPA, 174 mg DHA, 60 mg GLA daily).
Cochrane Library, Polyunsaturated fatty acids for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities in children: 2012 Cochrane review concluded evidence was insufficient to make treatment recommendations for PUFAs in specific neurodevelopmental disorders including motor coordination problems.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Omega-3 Fatty Acids Fact Sheet for Health Professionals: DHA is a major structural component of brain gray matter; adequate omega-3 intake supports neuronal membrane function and neurodevelopment.
Simopoulos AP, Omega-3 fatty acids in inflammation and autoimmune diseases, Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2002: Low omega-3 to omega-6 ratio shifts the body toward a pro-inflammatory state, with hypothesized effects on brain plasticity and learning.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatric Nutrition and policy on DHA: AAP recognizes DHA as important for infant and child brain development and supports adequate dietary intake; no AAP statement endorses supplementation specifically for speech disorders.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Omega-3 Fatty Acids Adequate Intake tables: AI for omega-3 (ALA) is 0.7 g/day for children aged 1 to 3 and 0.9 g/day for children aged 4 to 8.
FDA, Dietary Supplements guidance and qualified health claims for omega-3 fatty acids: FDA notes that intakes above roughly 3 g/day of EPA plus DHA may increase bleeding risk; prescription omega-3 drugs require physician oversight.
Apraxia Kids, Research and Treatment Information: Apraxia Kids states no evidence currently supports supplements as a treatment for CAS and recommends motor-based speech therapy as the primary intervention.
ASHA, Health Insurance and Reimbursement for Speech-Language Pathology Services: Speech therapy costs vary widely; ASHA notes private-pay rates typically range from $150 to over $250 per session depending on location and setting.
ASHA, Augmentative and Alternative Communication practice portal: AAC is supported as a complement to speech therapy for children with significantly limited speech output; devices range from no-cost apps to high-tech devices costing thousands.
Mazahery H et al., Vitamin D and Autism Spectrum Disorder, Nutrients, 2021: 2021 review found vitamin D deficiency is common in children with ASD and other neurodevelopmental conditions; observational data suggest possible links to motor and language outcomes.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Choline Fact Sheet for Health Professionals: Adequate Intake for choline is 200 mg/day for children aged 1 to 3 and 250 mg/day for children aged 4 to 8; many children do not meet this through diet alone.