Symptom Network Analysis in a Large Sample of Children and Adults with a Chronic Tic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic tic disorders (CTD) are multifaceted disorders characterized by multiple motor and/or vocal tics. They are often associated with complex tics including echophenomena, paliphenomena, and coprophenomena as well as psychiatric comorbidities such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to uncover the inter-relational structure of CTD and comorbid symptoms in children and adults and to understand changes in symptom structure across development. METHODS: We used network and graph analyses to uncover the structure of association of symptoms in childhood/adolescence (n = 529) and adulthood (n = 503) and how this structure might change from childhood to adulthood, pinpointing core symptoms as a main target for interventions. RESULTS: The analysis yielded core symptom networks in young and adult patients with CTD including complex tics and tic-related phenomena as well as touching people and objects. Core symptoms in childhood also included ADHD symptoms, whereas core symptoms in adults included symptoms of OCD instead. Interestingly, self-injurious behavior did not play a core role in the young CTD network, but became one of the central symptoms in adults with CDT. In addition, we found strong connections between complex motor and vocal tics as well as echolalia and echopraxia. CONCLUSIONS: Next to other complex tics, echophenomena, paliphenomena, and coprophenomena can be regarded core symptoms of CTD. ADHD symptoms are closely related to CTD in childhood, whereas symptoms of OCD and self-injurious behavior are closely associated with CTD in adults. Our results suggest that a differentiation between motor and vocal tics is somewhat arbitrary.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".