Chronic tic disorders in children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine in a community-based cohort: (1) the prevalence of chronic tic disorder (CTD) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared with non-ADHD controls at ages 7 and 10; and (2) the additional psychiatric and functional burden of CTD in children with ADHD. METHODS: Children aged 6-8 years with ADHD (n=179) and controls (n=212) were recruited through 43 Victorian schools using parent and teacher screening surveys (Conners 3 ADHD Index), followed by case confirmation (Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-IV (DISC-IV)). CTD was identified using the DISC-IV categories chronic motor tic disorder, chronic vocal tic disorder or Tourette syndrome at baseline and 36-month follow-up. Internalising and externalising disorders, social functioning, academic performance and quality of life were also measured. Tests of proportions and independent t-tests were used to compare the ADHD+CTD group with sex-matched ADHD alone children. RESULTS: Compared with controls, children with ADHD were 4.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 14.1) times more likely to have CTD at age 7, and 5.9 (95% CI 1.6 to 17.9) times more likely at age 10. Children with ADHD+CTD experienced higher rates of internalising disorders and peer problems, and poorer quality of life than those with ADHD alone. CONCLUSIONS: CTD prevalence is higher in children with ADHD compared with controls, and confers substantial additional psychiatric and functional burden. Clinicians need to consider CTD in both the initial assessment and ongoing management of children with ADHD, and address both the symptoms and the associated impairments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".