MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389483339 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13951

Premonitory Urge in Patients with Tics and Functional Tic‐like Behaviors

2023· article· en· W4389483339 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAmerican Academy of Neurology
KeywordsTicsPsychologyTourette syndromeTic disorderPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Premonitory urges (PU) are well described in primary tics, but their frequency and intensity in functional tic-like behaviors (FTLB) are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To study the experience of PU in patients with FTLB. METHODS: We compared the results of the premonitory urge for tics scale (PUTS) in adults with tics and FTLB in the University of Calgary Adult Tic Registry. RESULTS: We included 83 patients with tics and 40 with FTLB. When comparing patients with tics, FTLB with tics and FTLB only, we did not detect significant differences either in the total PUTS score (P = 0.39), or in any of the individual PUTS item sub-scores (P values ranging between 0.11 and 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FTLB report PU at similar frequency and intensity to patients with tics. This finding confirms that PU are not a useful feature to discriminate FTLB from tics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.332 · 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