MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400895756 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1427

PROTOCOL: Mindfulness‐based interventions for improving tic‐related symptoms in children and adults with chronic tic disorder and Tourette's disorder: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4400895756 on OpenAlexaff
Ilana Singer, Méliza Gagnon, J. Leclerc

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTic disorderTourette syndromeMindfulnessPsychological interventionTicsSystematic reviewPsychologyProtocol (science)PsychiatryClinical psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)MedicinePsychotherapistMEDLINEAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prototype). The objectives are as follows: This systematic review aims to summarize the available scientific literature on the effect of mindfulness-based approaches in children and adults with Chronic Tic Disorder (CTD) or Tourette Disorder (TD). More specifically, the research question is: What is the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in reducing tic severity and improving overall functioning, quality of life, and co-occurring symptoms in children and adults with CTD or TD?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.015

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207