What are the Key Phenomenological Clues to Diagnose Functional Tic‐Like Behaviors in the Pandemic Era?
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
BACKGROUND: Functional tic-like behaviors (FTLBs) can be difficult to distinguish from tics. OBJECTIVES: To describe the phenomenology of FTLBs in youth and assess the movements and vocalizations most suggestive of the diagnosis. METHODS: We compared the phenomenology of tics between youth (<20 yr) with FTLBs and with primary tics from our Registry in Calgary, Canada. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-six youths were included: 195 with primary tics (75% males; mean age: 10.8 yr) and 41 with FTLBs (98% females; 16.1 yr). In the bivariate models, FTLBs were most associated with copropraxia (OR = 15.5), saying words (OR = 14.5), coprolalia (OR = 13.1), popping (OR = 11.0), whistling (OR = 9.8), simple head movements (OR = 8.6), and self-injurious behaviors (OR = 6.9). In the multivariable model, FTLBs were still associated with saying words (OR = 13.5) and simple head movements (OR = 6.3). Only 12.2% of youth with FTLBs had throat clearing tics (OR = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study shall help physicians diagnose youth with FTLBs according to the presence/association of specific movements and vocalizations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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