Influence of sex on tic severity and psychiatric comorbidity profile in patients with pediatric tic disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate sex-related differences in tic severity, tic-related impairments, and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood. METHOD: In this cross-sectional study, tic severity/impairment and demographic factors were collected from 270 children and young people (aged 5-17y, mean 10y 6mo, SD 3y 4mo; 212 males and 58 females) with a tic disorder diagnosis at a specialty clinic. Psychiatric diagnoses and corresponding screening questionnaire scores were collected for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders. Logistic regression was used to compare the effect of sex and age on psychiatric comorbid diagnoses. The Mann-Whitney U test and t-tests were used to assess differences in questionnaire score distribution between sexes. RESULTS: Females had more severe motor tics (12.55 vs 10.81, p=0.01) and higher global severity scores (38.79 vs 32.66, p=0.03) on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale. Females were less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD (odds ratio=0.48, 95% confidence interval=0.26-0.89). No significant sex difference was observed in diagnosis rates or symptom severity scores for anxiety or OCD. Females had significantly higher scores than males on the Children's Depression Inventory, Second Edition. INTERPRETATION: The higher level of motor tic severity and global severity in females further supports the differential natural history of tic disorders in females. Females with tic disorders may be underdiagnosed for ADHD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it