Have We Forgotten What Tics Are? A Re‐Exploration of Tic Phenomenology in Youth with Primary Tics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The first systematic description of tics in a large sample was in 1978. Objectives To assess the phenomenology of tics in youth and investigate how age and sex influence tic phenomenology. Methods Children and adolescents with primary tic disorders have been prospectively included in our Registry in Calgary, Canada, since 2017. We examined tic frequency and distribution using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, differences between sexes, and changes in tic severity with age and with mental health comorbidities. Results A total of 203 children and adolescents with primary tic disorders were included (76.4% males; mean age = 10.7 years, 95% CI = 10.3–11.1). At first assessment, the most common simple motor tics were eye blinking (57%), head jerks/movements (51%), eye movements (48%) and mouth movements (46%); 86% had at least one simple facial tic. The most frequent complex motor tics were tic‐related compulsive behaviors (19%). Throat clearing was the most common simple phonic tic (42%); 5% only had coprolalia. Females had higher frequency and intensity of motor tics than males (P = 0.032 and P = 0.006, respectively), associated with greater tic‐related impairment (P = 0.045). Age was positively correlated with the Total Tic Severity Score (coefficient 0.54, P = 0.005), along with the number, frequency and intensity of motor tics but not with their complexity. Psychiatric comorbidities were associated with greater tic severity. Conclusions Our study suggests that age and sex affect clinical presentation in youth with tics. The phenomenology of tics in our sample was similar to the 1978 description of tics, and contrasts with functional tic‐like behaviors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".