Meta‐analysis of neutralizing antibody conversion with onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) across multiple indications
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
This meta-analysis evaluated the frequency of neutralizing antibody (nAb) conversion with onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®; Allergan) across five studied indications. The analysis was based on large, controlled or prospective, open-label trials (durations 4 months to ≥2 years). Serum samples were analyzed for nAbs using the Mouse Protection Assay. Subjects who were antibody negative at baseline and had at least one analyzable postbaseline antibody assay result were included. The 16 clinical studies included 3,006 subjects; of these, 2,240 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Subjects received 1-15 treatments (mean 3.8 treatments) with onabotulinumtoxinA. Total doses per treatment cycle ranged from 10 or 20 units in glabellar lines to 20-500 units in cervical dystonia. The numbers of subjects who converted from an antibody-negative status at baseline to antibody-positive status at any post-treatment time point were: cervical dystonia 4/312 (1.28%), glabellar lines 2/718 (0.28%), overactive bladder 0/22 (0%), post-stroke spasticity 1/317 (0.32%), and primary axillary hyperhidrosis 4/871 (0.46%). Across all indications, 11/2,240 subjects (0.49%) converted from antibody negative at baseline to positive at one or more post-treatment time points, but only three subjects became clinically unresponsive to onabotulinumtoxinA at some point following a positive assay. Based on these large trials, the frequency of antibody conversion after onabotulinumtoxinA treatment is very low, and infrequently leads to loss of efficacy. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it