The cognitive neuropsychiatry of Tourette syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Converging evidence from both clinical and experimental studies has shown that Tourette syndrome (TS) is not a unitary condition, but a cluster of multiple phenotypes, which encompass both tics and specific behavioural and cognitive symptoms (mainly attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder).Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the recent literature on the cognitive neuropsychiatry of TS.Results: Although clinical research has shown that TS is not associated with cognitive deficits per se, the findings of recent studies have suggested the presence of subtle alterations in specific cognitive functions. A promising line of research on imitative behaviour could provide a common background for the alterations in executive control and social cognition observed in TS. Two different (but not mutually exclusive) neurocognitive theories have recently suggested that TS could originate from altered perception-action binding and social decision-making dysfunction, respectively.Conclusions: Since the presence of behavioural comorbidities influences individualised treatment approaches, it is likely that a more precise characterisation of TS phenotypes, including cognitive aspects, will result in improved levels of care for patients with tic disorders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".