MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paediatric tic-like presentations during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021· article· en· W3215327258 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Buts, Morvwen Duncan, Tamsin Owen, Davide Martino, Tamara Pringsheim, Susan Byrne, Andrew McWilliams, Tara Murphy, Osman Malik, Holan Liang, Isobel Heyman, Tammy Hedderly

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AnxietyPediatricsTicsPresentation (obstetrics)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Retrospective cohort studyPsychiatryInternal medicineDiseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Clinical centres have seen an increase in tic-like movements during the COVID-19 pandemic. A series of children and adolescents are described. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 34 consecutive paediatric patients presenting with sudden onset tic-like movements, seen over 6 months. RESULTS: 94% of patients were female, with an average age of sudden onset or increase of tic-like movements of 13.7 years. 44% had a previous diagnosis of tics, and 47% initially presented to an emergency department. Comorbid psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders were reported in 91% with 68% reporting anxiety. CONCLUSION: We highlight a dramatic presentation of sudden onset functional tic-like movements in predominantly female adolescents to help inform identification and management. There is need to research the neurobiological underpinnings and environmental exacerbating factors leading to these presentations and to explore effective therapeutic strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207