A clinically relevant BTX-A injection protocol leads to persistent weakness, contractile material loss, and an altered mRNA expression phenotype in rabbit quadriceps muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botulinum toxin type-A (BTX-A) injections have become a common treatment modality for patients suffering from muscle spasticity. Despite its benefits, BTX-A treatments have been associated with adverse effects on target muscles. Currently, application of BTX-A is largely based on clinical experience, and research quantifying muscle structure following BTX-A treatment has not been performed systematically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate strength, muscle mass, and contractile material six months following a single or repeated (2 and 3) BTX-A injections into the quadriceps femoris of New Zealand white rabbits. Twenty three skeletally mature rabbits were divided into four groups: experimental group rabbits received 1, 2, or 3 injections at intervals of 3 months (1-BTX-A, 2-BTX-A, 3-BTX-A, respectively) while control group rabbits received volume-matched saline injections. Knee extensor strength, quadriceps muscle mass, and quadriceps contractile material of the experimental group rabbits were expressed as a percentage change relative to the control group rabbits. One-way ANOVA was used to determine group differences in outcome measures (α=0.05). Muscle strength and contractile material were significantly reduced in experimental compared to control group rabbits but did not differ between experimental groups. Muscle mass was the same in experimental BTX-A and control group rabbits. We concluded from these results that muscle strength and contractile material do not fully recover within six months of BTX-A treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".