Practice guideline recommendations summary: Treatment of tics in people with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on the assessment and management of tics in people with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel consisting of 9 physicians, 2 psychologists, and 2 patient representatives developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from a systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. RESULTS: Forty-six recommendations were made regarding the assessment and management of tics in individuals with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders. These include counseling recommendations on the natural history of tic disorders, psychoeducation for teachers and peers, assessment for comorbid disorders, and periodic reassessment of the need for ongoing therapy. Treatment options should be individualized, and the choice should be the result of a collaborative decision among patient, caregiver, and clinician, during which the benefits and harms of individual treatments as well as the presence of comorbid disorders are considered. Treatment options include watchful waiting, the Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics, and medication; recommendations are provided on how to offer and monitor these therapies. Recommendations on the assessment for and use of deep brain stimulation in adults with severe, treatment-refractory tics are provided as well as suggestions for future research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".