MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407857918 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.70020

Tic Disorders Care Gaps in Spanish‐Speaking Latin America

2025· article· en· W4407857918 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Medina, Daniela Muñoz, Sylvia Gautreau, Malco Rossi, Tamara Pringsheim

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryHorizon Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary tic disorders (TD) are common movement disorders in childhood. However, it is unclear if international guidelines are applied in Latin America. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the applicability of TD guidelines in Latin America. METHODS: An online survey was developed and distributed to healthcare professionals treating TD across Latin America. RESULTS: Healthcare providers from 15 countries participated. TD are mainly diagnosed by general neurologists (85%). There is limited access to public clinics for movement disorders or TD, and 80% do not utilize a protocol. Rating scales are rarely used. More than half reported being unaware of resources for psychoeducation. Non-pharmacological interventions for TD and alpha agonists are unavailable in several countries. Consequently, antipsychotics are the first line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The ubiquity of TD diagnosis throughout Latin America is a positive aspect, however barriers like limited referral pathways, lack of awareness about tics and treatment options do exist. This highlights the need for more effective pathways for TD in Latin America.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207