Sex Differences in Youth with Chronic Tic Disorder and Tourette Syndrome: Evaluation of Tic Severity, Psychological Profiles, and Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tourette syndrome (TS) and Chronic Tic Disorder (CT) are neurodevelopmental conditions involving motor and/or phonic tics. Youth with tics may encounter feelings of isolation, diminished self-esteem and quality of life, and academic difficulties. A growing body of scientific literature suggests sex differences in youth with tics, but findings have been mixed so far. Because symptom severity peaks around puberty, understanding sex differences in tic manifestations and associated symptoms during this critical period is essential. Therefore, we aimed to assess sex differences related to tic symptoms, action planning styles, quality of life, and externalizing/internalizing symptoms in youth with tics. Methods: Our sample consisted of 66 youths with tics (19 girls) aged 7–14 (mean = 10 years). Youths were assessed with clinical interviews, as well as self- and parent-reported inventories evaluating tic symptoms, psychological profiles, and quality of life. Results: While no differences in tic symptoms were found, girls exhibited lower functional inflexibility, reduced overall functional planning effectiveness, and higher impairment in the psychological well-being subscale than boys. Additionally, girls had reduced general life satisfaction and social self-esteem. Boys reported more explosive outbursts, higher levels of hyperactivity, and more difficulties with self-concept. Conclusions: Our analyses suggested differences in several manifestations associated with tics. This introduces new perspectives that refine our understanding of sex differences. A better understanding of sex differences in tic disorders may eventually improve outcomes for all individuals living with these conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".