Reply: Comorbid Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in Tourette's Syndrome: Questioning its Impact
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are grateful for the insightful comments3 on our study5 by Ms. Hanafi and Prof. Lavoie regarding the potential impact of comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). While the active and sham stimulation arms did not have statistically significant differences, we acknowledge the higher presence of OCD as a comorbidity in the active stimulation group. Despite lack of difference in baseline Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores and inclusion criteria requiring stability in comorbidities, we agree that there may be an influence of milder OCD symptoms. The question of the intersection between premonitory urge and OCD has been a topic of interest in the literature. The Premonitory Urge for Tics Scale (PUTS) is a nine-item measure which incorporates various phenomenological descriptors of urges (feeling itchiness, pressure, tension, not “just right,” not complete, or an energy in the body) and question on frequency, relief after tics, and overall tic suppression ability.3 While correlations between PUTS and OCD severity have been identified by some,4 other studies have failed to find differences in PUTS scores between participants with or without OCD1. Interestingly, however, there may exist item-level differences (for example higher report of feeling tense or “wound up” in those with OCD).2 Evaluating urge outside of the PUTS, one study identified higher urge intensity, but not frequency, associated with OCD.1 Given the small sample size, our study was not adequately powered to detect impact of the intervention on comorbidities including OCD. The detection of changes in the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) and Premonitory Urge for Tics Scale (PUTS), which are informed by patient experience, rather than video-based tic counts, supports the notion that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is influencing the overall experience of tics beyond just frequency. Larger studies are therefore required to interrogate exactly which individuals—with unique comorbidity profiles—stand to benefit from tDCS. Funding Sources and Conflict of Interest: No specific funding was received for this work. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest relevant to this work. Financial Disclosures for the Previous 12 Months: YM has no additional disclosures to report. DM has received consultancies fees from Roche, and honoraria as speaker from Abbvie, Merz Pharmaceuticals, the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada, the International Parkinson's Movement Disorders Society, and Canadian Movement Disorders Society. He receives honoraria as scientific advisor for the Ministry of University and Research of Italy. He receives royalties from Springer-Verlag and Oxford University Press. He has received research grants from the Weston Family Foundation, the New Frontiers for Research Fund, the Neuroscience, Rehabilitation and Vision Strategic Clinical Network of the Alberta Health Services, the National Institutes of Health (Dystonia Coalition), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Parkinson Foundation, the Azrieli Foundation and the Calgary Parkinson's Research Initiative (CaPRI). He is a site PI for a clinical trial for UCB and for an observational study supported by MRM Health NV and Nimble Science. DM is chair of the Research Committee of the Board of the charity Parkinson's Association of Alberta. Ethical Compliance Statement: Institutional review board approval was not necessary for this study. Informed patient consent was not necessary for this work. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».