Coprophenomena in Tourette syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this descriptive study were to examine the prevalence and associations of coprophenomena (involuntary expression of socially unacceptable words or gestures) in individuals with Tourette syndrome. Participant data were obtained from the Tourette Syndrome International Database Consortium. A specialized data collection form was completed for each of a subset of 597 consecutive new patients with Tourette syndrome from 15 sites in seven countries. Coprolalia occurred at some point in the lifetime of 19.3% of males and 14.6% of females, and copropraxia in 5.9% of males and 4.9% of females. Coprolalia was three times as frequent as copropraxia, with a mean onset of each at about 11 years, 5 years after the onset of tics. In 11% of those with coprolalia and 12% of those with copropraxia these coprophenomena were one of the initial symptoms of Tourette syndrome. The onsets of tics, coprophenomena, smelling of non-food objects, and spitting were strongly intercorrelated. Early onset of coprophenomena was not associated with its longer persistence. The most robust associations of coprophenomena were with the number of non-tic repetitive behaviors, spitting, and inappropriate sexual behavior. Although coprophenomena are a frequently feared possibility in the course of Tourette syndrome, their emergence occurs in only about one in five referred patients. Because the course and actual impact of coprophenomena are variable, additional prospective research is needed to provide better counseling and prognostic information.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".