Neurodevelopmental movement disorders - an update on childhood motor stereotypies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The term 'stereotypies' encompasses a diverse range of movements, behaviours, and/or vocalizations that are repetitive, lack clear function, and sometimes appear to have a negative impact upon an individual's life. This review aims to describe motor stereotypies. METHOD: This study reviewed the current literature on the nature, aetiology, and treatment of motor stereotypies. RESULTS: Motor stereotypies occur commonly but not exclusively in autistic spectrum disorders. Similar movements are also found in otherwise healthy children and those suffering sensory impairment, social isolation, or severe intellectual disabilities; they may be persistent over time. Although often difficult, it is possible to define and differentiate stereotypies from other movement disorders such as tics through features of the history, such as earlier onset and examination, together with the presence or absence of associated neurological impairment or developmental difficulties. Co-occurrence with other disorders affecting frontostriatal brain systems, including attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tic disorders, is common. INTERPRETATION: The underlying function of motor stereotypies remains unclear but may include the maintenance of arousal levels. A neurogenetic aetiology is proposed but requires further study. When treatment is sought, there are both pharmacological and behavioural options. Behavioural treatments for motor stereotypies may in time be shown to be most effective; however, they are difficult to implement in children younger than 7 years old.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".