MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409698858 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.70078

How do I Know That the Jerks I See Are Tics?

2025· article· en· W4409698858 on OpenAlexaff
Talyta Grippe, Anthony E. Lang, Christos Ganos

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTicsChoreaTourette syndromeMovement disordersDystoniaPsychologyMyoclonic JerkContext (archaeology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMyoclonusPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tics are prevalent hyperkinesias that are most often encountered in the context of a primary tic disorder, as in Tourette syndrome. Although their recognition is typically straightforward, they often share some phenomenological features with other jerky hyperkinesias and may be mislabeled as such. These include myoclonic jerks, dystonia, chorea, stereotypies, as well as functional movement disorders. Here we discuss specific clues from clinical history and highlight relevant phenomenological qualities of tics, as well as their differences from other hyperkinetic disorders. We also showcase a broad range of relevant videos to facilitate correct recognition and labeling of motor phenomena. Our goal is to support clinicians in their diagnostic approach to tics, including their distinction from other jerky movement disorders. We believe that this will not only improve diagnostic accuracy in tic disorders, but it will also expedite appropriate care where needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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