Evaluation of Botulinum Toxin A Therapy in Children With Adductor Spasm by Gross Motor Function Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intramuscular injection of botulinum neurotoxin A is a relatively new method for treating spastic movement disorders in children. One major goal of any therapy for patients with movement disorders is to improve gross motor function. In this study, 18 patients with adductor spasm were treated with botulinum neurotoxin A. Treatment effect was determined with the Gross Motor Function Measure, a standardized, validated instrument designed to assist in assessment of gross motor function. Spastic muscle hyperactivity and joint mobility were evaluated by the modified Ashworth Scale and by range of motion, respectively. Compared to pretreatment values, significant improvement in gross motor function (P < .010), decrease in the modified Ashworth Scale, and increase in the range of motion (P < .010) were achieved. Patients with moderate impairment of gross motor function (classed at level III and level IV in the Gross Motor Function Classification System) benefited most from treatment. In patients with severe handicap (level V), only one of five treated patients showed improvement in gross motor function. Nevertheless, all patients in this subgroup benefited from improved ease in hygienic care. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that for most children with moderate functional impairment, the Gross Motor Function Measure is a useful instrument for objective documentation of improvements of gross motor function following treatment with botulinum neurotoxin A.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".