Repeat injection of botulinum toxin A is safe and effective for upper limb movement and function in children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of repeated botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) injections in two and three dose regimes, together with occupational therapy, on upper limb movement and function, was studied using an evaluator blinded, randomized, controlled two-group trial. Forty-two children (31 males, 11 females; range 2-8 y, mean 4 y [SD 1 y 7 mo]) with hemiplegic cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification System Level I) longitudinally participated for 30 months, with the first 6 months reported earlier (Lowe et al. 2006). The BTX-A group (n=21) received three injections (0, 6, and 18 mo), while the delayed group had two (6 and 18 mo; dose 0.5-2.1 units/kg, mean 1.5 [SD 0.18]; dilution 100 units/0.5 ml). At 30 months, no difference existed between groups on any standardized measures. First and second injections showed significant treatment effect sizes, on Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (5.5 p=0.01: 4.5 p=0.03); parent Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS; 3.5 p=0.02: 3.9 p=0.01; therapist GAS 7.8 p=0.00: 4.0 p=0.03); Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (performance 0.4 p=0.05: 0.4 p=0.02; satisfaction 0.4 p=0.05: 0.37 p=0.08); and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory functional skills (1.8 p=0.00: 2.3 p=0.04). BTX-A was not linked to adverse events, suggesting repeated upper limb injections in children with hemiplegia receiving occupational therapy were safe and effective for improvement of movement and function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".