European clinical guidelines for Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders—version 2.0. Part I: assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011 a working group of the European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome (ESSTS) has developed the first European assessment guidelines for Tourette syndrome (TS). Now, we present an updated version 2.0 of these European clinical guidelines for Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders, part I: assessment. Therefore, the available literature has been thoroughly screened, supplemented with national guidelines across countries and discussions among ESSTS experts. Diagnostic changes between DSM-IV and DSM-5 classifications were taken into account and new information has been added regarding differential diagnoses, with an emphasis on functional movement disorders in both children and adults. Further, recommendations regarding rating scales to evaluate tics, comorbidities, and neuropsychological status are provided. Finally, results from a recently performed survey among ESSTS members on assessment in TS are described. We acknowledge that the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) is still the gold standard for assessing tics. Recommendations are provided for scales for the assessment of tics and psychiatric comorbidities in patients with TS not only in routine clinical practice, but also in the context of clinical research. Furthermore, assessments supporting the differential diagnosis process are given as well as tests to analyse cognitive abilities, emotional functions and motor skills.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".