Rating scales for cervical dystonia: a critical evaluation of tools for outcome assessment of botulinum toxin therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botulinum neurotoxin is the therapy of choice for all forms of cervical dystonia (CD), but treatment regimens still vary considerably. The interpretation of treatment outcome is mainly based on the clinical experience and on the scientific value of the rating scales applied. The aim of this review is to describe the historical development of rating scales for the assessment of CD and to provide an appraisal of their advantages and drawbacks. The Tsui score and the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) have been widely employed in numerous clinical studies as specific instruments for CD. The obvious advantage of the Tsui score is its simplicity so that it can be easily implemented in clinical routine. The TWSTRS allows a more sophisticated assessment of functional features of CD, but only the Tsui score includes a rating for tremor. Other benefits of the TWSTRS are the disability and pain subscales, but despite its value in clinical trials, it might be too complex for routine clinical practice. None of the rating scales used at present has been rigorously tested for responsiveness to detect significant changes in clinical status after therapeutic interventions. Moreover, clinical data support a new classification of CD leading to a differentiation between head and neck subtypes. As the current rating scales are not able to cover all these aspects of the disorder, further research is needed to develop a valid and reliable instrument which considers the most current classification of CD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it