Maximal stability limits in adolescents with Tourette syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored if adolescents with Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS) had functional postural control impairments and how these deficits are linked to a disturbance in the processing and integration of sensory information. We evaluated the displacements of the center of pressure (COP) during maximal leaning in four directions (forward, backward, rightward, leftward) and under three sensory conditions (eyes open, eyes closed, eyes closed standing on foam). GTS adolescents showed deficits in postural stability and in lateral postural adjustments but they had similar maximal COP excursion than the control group. The postural performance of the GTS group was poorer in the eyes open condition (time to phase 1 onset, max-mean COP). Moreover, they displayed a poorer ability to maintain the maximum leaning position under the eyes open condition during mediolateral leaning tasks. By contrast, during forward leaning, they showed larger min-max ranges than control subjects while standing on the foam with the eyes closed. Together, these findings support the idea that GTS produces subclinical postural control deficits. Importantly, our results suggest that postural control disorders in GTS are highly sensitive to voluntary postural leaning tasks which have high demand for multimodal sensory integration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".