Aripiprazole in Children and Adolescents with Tourette's Disorder: An Open-Label Safety and Tolerability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a prospective safety and tolerability study of aripiprazole for the treatment of tics in children and adolescents with Tourette's disorder (TD). METHOD: Eleven subjects (10 males) with TD (age 9-19 years, mean 13.36, standard deviation [SD] 3.33) who did not respond or were unable to tolerate previous tic medication were treated with aripiprazole in an open-label, flexible-dosing study over 10 weeks. Tic severity was rated using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale for tics (CGI-Tics) at baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) daily dose for aripiprazole was 4.5 +/- 3.0 mg. Mean (+/-SD) YGTSS Global Severity scores reduced from 61.82 +/- 13.49 at baseline to 33.73 +/- 15.18 at end point; mean YGTSS total tic scores reduced from 28.18 +/- 7.74 at baseline to 16.73 +/- 7.54 at end point. Mean (+/-SD) CGI-Tic severity scores reduced from 4.45 +/- 0.52 (moderate-marked) at baseline to 3.18 +/- 0.60 (mild) at end point. On the CGI-Tic improvement scale, 10 (91%) subjects achieved 1 ("very much improved") or 2 ("much improved") at end point. Most common adverse effects included appetite increase and weight gain in 5 subjects, mild extrapyramidal effects in 7 subjects, and headaches and tiredness/fatigue in 7 subjects; 1 subject experienced akathisia and muscle cramps. CONCLUSION: Aripiprazole appears to be a safe and tolerable treatment in children and adolescents with TD that appears to reduce tics; it should be further investigated as a treatment option in controlled trials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".