Meta-Cognitions in Tourette Syndrome, Tic Disorders, and Body-Focused Repetitive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore if self-reported presence of thinking about tics or body-focused repetitive behaviours (BFRBs; gests) are direct triggers of tic or gest onset in 3 groups: Tourette syndrome (TS; n =18), persistent chronic tic disorders (TDs; n = 42), and a comparison group with BFRB (n = 36). METHOD: The 3 groups completed a thinking about tics inventory, listing 22 items derived from clinician consensus that asked whether thoughts always, sometimes, or never exclusively triggered tic onset. Other questionnaires measured mood, perfectionism, impulsivity, premonitory urge, and self-rated tension. Sixty-three participants completed the inventory twice, and the inventory was completed pre- and post-behavioural intervention by a further 54. RESULTS: The ranking of the thoughts reported as likely to trigger tics or gests was positively correlated across TD and BFRB groups. Exploratory principal components analysis of a reduced 12-item set (the thinking about tics inventory) in TS and TD groups revealed that such thoughts could be grouped into 3 separate subscales: thoughts about the interference of tics or gests, thoughts anticipating tics or gests, and thoughts about whether the person has permission to perform the tic or the gest. The 3 sets of subscales showed good and acceptable internal consistency and overall score showed good test-retest reliability, suggesting thoughts about tics or gests are robust and measurable. The subscales correlated with impulsivity, tic or behaviour severity, and ratings of frequency decreased post-behavioural treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Thinking about tics or gests is reported as triggering tics or gests in both TD and BFRB, and meta-cognition seems independent of premonitory sensations and relates to distinct clinical characteristics in each clinical group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".