Testing the specificity of phenomenological criteria for functional tic‐like behaviours in youth with Tourette syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to test the specificity of phenomenological criteria for functional tic-like behaviours (FTLBs). The European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome (ESSTS) criteria for the diagnosis of FTLBs include three major criteria: age at symptom onset ≥12 years, rapid evolution of symptoms and specific phenomenology. METHODS: Children and adolescents with primary tic disorders have been included in a Registry in Calgary, Canada, since 2017. Using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, the proportion of youth with primary tic disorders who met specific phenomenological criteria for FTLBs at first visit was assessed: (1) having ≥1 specific complex motor tic commonly seen in FTLBs, including complex arm/hand movements, self-injurious behaviour, blocking, copropraxia; (2) having ≥1 specific complex phonic tic commonly seen in FTLBs, including saying words, phrases, disinhibited speech, coprolalia; (3) having a greater number of complex tics than simple tics. Children seen for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and between 2021 and 2023 were analysed separately. RESULTS: Of 156 participants included between 2017 and 2019, high specificity (94.2%) of the age at onset criterion (≥12 years) and of having at least two complex motor behaviours and one complex phonic behaviour at first visit (96.2%) was observed. Some of the complex motor tics had lower specificity. The specificity of the FTLB diagnostic criterion of having more complex tics than simple tics was 89.7%. There was no significant difference in specificity of the criteria for children seen for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and between 2021 and 2023 (n = 149). CONCLUSION: This information supports the use of the ESSTS criteria for FTLBs in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".