Vitamin D levels in children and adolescents with chronic tic disorders: a multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether vitamin D is associated with the presence or severity of chronic tic disorders and their psychiatric comorbidities. This cross-sectional study compared serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] (ng/ml) levels among three groups: children and adolescents (3-16 years) with CTD (n = 327); first-degree relatives (3-10 years) of individuals with CTD who were assessed for a period of up to 7 years for possible onset of tics and developed tics within this period (n = 31); and first-degree relatives who did not develop tics and were ≥ 10 years old at their last assessment (n = 93). The relationship between 25(OH)D and the presence and severity of tics, as well as comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), were analysed controlling for age, sex, season, centre, latitude, family relatedness, and comorbidities. When comparing the CTD cohort to the unaffected cohort, the observed result was contrary to the one expected: a 10 ng/ml increase in 25(OH)D was associated with higher odds of having CTD (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.27-3.42, p < 0.01). There was no association between 25(OH)D and tic severity. However, a 10 ng/ml increase in 25(OH)D was associated with lower odds of having comorbid ADHD within the CTD cohort (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84, p = 0.01) and was inversely associated with ADHD symptom severity (β = - 2.52, 95% CI - 4.16-0.88, p < 0.01). In conclusion, lower vitamin D levels were not associated with a higher presence or severity of tics but were associated with the presence and severity of comorbid ADHD in children and adolescents with CTD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".