Bibliographic record
Abstract
29 Epidemiology and prevalenceDepending on the sample characteristics, between 0.15% and 1.1% of all children have GTS and boys outnumber girls by at least 4:1 (Kadesjo & Gillberg, 2000), with the most severe period of tic severity occurring at 10 years old (Leckman et al., 1998), followed by a decrease until the adult age with approximately 40% eventually becoming symptom-free (Burd et al., 2001).Although whether tics disappear or adapt in adults remains controversial (Pappert, Goetz, Louis, Blasucci, & Leurgans, 2003).Tics are also sensitive to a number of exacerbating factors including everyday psychosocial stress, anxiety, emotional excitement, and fatigue (Findley et al., 2003).Once considered very rare, the incidence of GTS in adults is about 0.1-1% (Leckman et al., 1998).The lifetime prevalence of GTS in adults is not known, but estimates vary between 5% and 10% of the population.In a recent study, O'Connor (2005) found a self-report life-time prevalence rate of 8%.Other recent estimates have placed the prevalence of GTS at 1% and chronic tic disorders at 10% of the population (Robertson, 2003;Robertson & Stern, 2000). Secondary distress caused by ticsTics are rarely life-threatening except in cases where they may provoke auto-mutilation.Psychosocial distress however can be considerable and can involve secondary phobias, depressions, social anxieties and worries over self-image, and relationship problems.In our estimation of the interference of tic and habit disorders in daily activities, we found problems ranging from unemployment, marital conflict, interpersonal difficulties, employer relations, travel restrictions, problems attending social or public functions, performance worries (e.g. about driving, speaking, teaching, dancing, sport) all of which were perceived (by the affected person) to be a result of the tic habit (O'Connor, 2005;O'Connor et al., 2001).People with tics often experience low self-esteem and are (or become) hyperattentive to the judgment of others with consequent low self-satisfaction (Thibert, Day, & Sandor, 1995). How to referenceIn order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".