A Comparison of Botox 100 U/mL and Dysport 100 U/mL Using Dose Conversion Ratio 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin (BTX) are used as symptomatic treatment for cervical dystonia. Botox and Dysport are commercial products containing BTX; however, dosage and concentration of the prepared solution vary considerably among studies. The concentration of BTX in the prepared solution affects clinical outcome. This double-blind, randomized crossover trial compares Botox and Dysport in 2 different dose conversion ratios (1:3 and 1:1.7) when diluted to the same concentration (100 U/mL). METHODS: Forty-six patients with cervical dystonia received 3 different treatments, Botox in 2 different doses and Dysport as control treatment. The efficacy was evaluated 4 and 12 weeks after treatment using 5 instruments, including Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The primary outcome was the estimated median Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale total score, which was 1.96 points higher for Botox (1:3) compared with Dysport at week 4, but the difference was not statistically significant (confidence interval, -0.88-4.61; P = 0.0799). No significant differences were seen between Botox (1:1.7) and Dysport. At week 12, a statistically significant difference in effect between Botox (1:3) and Dysport was observed, suggesting a shorter duration of effect for Botox when this ratio (low dose) was used. Furthermore, the patients' assessments showed that the ratio 1:3 resulted in suboptimal efficacy of Botox. These secondary outcome observations indicate that the dose conversion ratio between Dysport 100 U/mL and Botox 100 U/mL may be lower than 1:3, but this must be further validated in a larger patient material.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".