A randomized controlled trial comparing botulinum toxin A dosage in the upper extremity of children with spasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effects of low and high doses of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) to improve upper extremity function. Thirty-nine children (22 males, 17 females) with a mean age of 6 years 2 months (SD 2y 9mo) diagnosed with spastic hemiplegia or triplegia were enrolled into this double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The high-dose group received BTX-A in the following doses: biceps 2U/kg, brachioradialis 1.5U/kg, common flexor origin 3U/kg, pronator teres 1.5U/kg, and adductor/opponens pollicis 0.6U/kg to a maximum of 20U. The low-dose group received 50% of this dosage. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 1 and 3 months after injection, and results were analyzed with a repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was no significant difference between the low-dose and high-dose groups in upper extremity function over the 3-month period as measured by the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (F[1,37]=0.18, p=0.68). There was no difference between the groups in the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Self Care Domain (F[1,37]=0.05, p=0.83). Although grip strength decreased over the 3-month period, there was no difference between groups (F[1,32]=0.45, p=0.51). These findings indicate that there is no difference in hand and arm function between a low dose and a high dose of BTX-A at 1 and 3 months after injection. This information can be used to guide dosage of BTX-A for the management of upper extremity spasticity in children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".