Clinical Features That Evoke the Concept of Disinhibition in Tourette Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity to efficiently control motor output, by either refraining from prepotent actions or disengaging from ongoing motor behaviors, is necessary for our ability to thrive in a stimulus-rich and socially complex environment. Failure to engage in successful inhibitory motor control could lead to aberrant behaviors typified by an excess of motor performance. In tic disorders and Tourette syndrome (TS) - the most common tic disorder encountered in clinics - surplus motor output is rarely the only relevant clinical sign. A range of abnormal behaviors is often encountered which are historically viewed as "disinhibition phenomena". Here, we present the different clinical features of TS from distinct categorical domains (motor, sensory, complex behavioral) that evoke the concept of disinhibition and discuss their associations. We also present evidence for their consideration as phenomena of inhibitory dysfunction and provide an overview of studies on TS pathophysiology which support this view. We then critically dissect the concept of disinhibition in TS and illuminate other salient aspects, which should be considered in a unitary pathophysiological approach. We briefly touch upon the dangers of oversimplification and emphasize the necessity of conceptual diversity in the scientific exploration of TS, from disinhibition and beyond.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".