Psychopharmacology of tic disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tics disorders and Tourette syndrome are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Currently, a vast number of behavioural, pharmacological and surgical treatments are available. METHODS: Relevant and recent articles about clinical features, neurobiology and treatment of tic disorders and Tourette syndrome were reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Tic disorders and Tourette syndrome are frequently associated with comorbid conditions such as obsessive compulsive symptoms, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, behavioural disorders and sleep difficulties. Fronto-striatal circuits and the dopaminergic system are believed to be involved in the pathophysiology of TS and tics. Pharmacological options that have been studied for treatment of tic disorders are reviewed. Behavioural therapy such as habit reversal training, and surgical treatment are other options. It is essential to identify and address comorbid conditions such as attention deficit disorder, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, depression, behavioural disorders and sleep disturbances, as they often cause more distress and disability than the tics themselves. CONCLUSION: Tic disorders frequently do not require pharmacological treatment, but if required, first line treatment options include dopamine modulators, tetrabenazine, clonidine and behavioural therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".