Olanzapine in the Treatment of Aggression and Tics in Children with Tourette's Syndrome—A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of olanzapine on aggressive behaviour and tic severity in children with Tourette's Syndrome (TS). METHOD: Ten (10) subjects (aged 7-13 years) with a primary diagnosis of TS and a history of aggressive behaviour were treated in a single-blind, 2-week placebo run-in, 8-week treatment phase trial. The starting dose of olanzapine was 1.25-2.5 mg/day and was titrated at biweekly intervals, as tolerated. The mean dosage at the end of the trial was 14.5 mg/day. RESULTS: All 10 subjects completed the study. Olanzapine produced clinically and statistically significant reductions of aggression and tic severity from baseline to trial completion, as measured by the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS). Weight gain during the treatment period was the most common adverse effect (range 2-20 lbs: group mean 12.0 lbs +/- 5.71). No other significant adverse effects were observed during the 10-week trial. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial confirm clinical observations that olanzapine may be an effective treatment for aggression and tics in children with Tourette's syndrome. Olanzapine was generally well tolerated, although significant weight gain was observed throughout the trial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".