Examining the functional activity of different obsessive–compulsive symptom dimensions in Tourette syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tourette syndrome (TS) is commonly comorbid with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and many phenomenological similarities exist between tics and obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS). Therefore, due to the clinical importance of comorbid OCD, the goal of this study was to investigate the neural substrates of OCS in TS using functional magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: Forty patients with TS and 20 healthy controls underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging while viewing blocks of OCS-provoking pictures relating to washing, checking and symmetry symptoms, as well as generally disgusting and neutral scenes. Statistical comparisons were made between patients with moderate/severe OCS, absent/mild OCS and healthy controls. As well, within the entire TS patient group, significant associations with clinical measures were assessed for each of the provocation conditions. RESULTS: Group differences in the insula, sensorimotor cortex, supramarginal gyrus and visual processing regions were common among the checking, washing and disgust conditions. In the patient group, negative associations between OCS severity and activity in the supramarginal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, sensorimotor cortex, precuneus and visual processing regions were common among the provocation conditions. Tic severity was only associated with activity in the anterior cingulate cortex for the symmetry condition. CONCLUSION: Our findings implicate areas previously reported to be involved in OCD, as well as areas not typically implicated in OCD, suggesting that the neurobiological profile of TS+OCD is intermediate to pure TS and pure OCD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".