Botulinum Toxin for Essential Tremor of the Voice With Multiple Anatomical Sites of Tremor: A Crossover Design Study of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the relative efficacy of unilateral and bilateral injections of botulinum toxin injection (BOTOX) in the treatment of essential tremor of the voice (ETV). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective open-label crossover study. METHODS: Patients referred to the Neurolaryngology Clinic at Toronto General Hospital with a diagnosis of ETV were eligible for the study. Patients were sequentially assigned to receive BOTOX as either a bilateral 2.5-U or a unilateral 15-U electromyography-guided injection, followed by the alternative injection 16 to 18 weeks later. Acoustic, aerodynamic, and nasopharyngoscopic data were collected approximately 2, 6, 10, and 16 weeks after each injection. Patients were asked to provide a perceptual evaluation of BOTOX effects at the conclusion of the study. RESULTS: Three of 10 patients demonstrated an objective reduction in tremor severity with bilateral injection, and 2 of 9 with unilateral injection. However, 8 of 10 patients wished to be re-injected at the conclusion of the study. A reduction in vocal effort appeared to be coincident with reduction in laryngeal airway resistance after BOTOX injection. CONCLUSIONS: Using objective acoustic measures, only a small proportion of patients achieved benefit from BOTOX injection for ETV. However, a majority of patients in our study benefited from a subjective reduction in vocal effort that may have been attributable to reduced laryngeal airway resistance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".