Botulinum toxin type <scp>A</scp> for neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic effect of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) on patients with spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain. METHODS: The effect of BTX-A on 40 patients with spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain was investigated using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. A 1-time subcutaneous BTX-A (200U) injection was administered to the painful area. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (0-100mm), the Korean version of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment were evaluated prior to treatment and at 4 and 8 weeks after the injection. RESULTS: At 4 and 8 weeks after injection, the VAS score for pain was significantly reduced by 18.6 ± 16.8 and 21.3 ± 26.8, respectively, in the BTX-A group, whereas it was reduced by 2.6 ± 14.6 and 0.3 ± 19.5, respectively, in the placebo group. The pain relief was associated with preservation of motor or sensory function below the neurological level of injury. Among the responders in the BTX-A group, 55% and 45% reported pain relief of 20% or greater at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, after the injection, whereas only 15% and 10% of the responders in the placebo group reported a similar level of pain relief. Improvements in the score for the physical health domain of the WHOQOL-BREF in the BTX-A group showed a marginal trend toward significance (p = 0.0521) at 4 weeks after the injection. INTERPRETATION: These results indicate that BTX-A may reduce intractable chronic neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".