MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322689623 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.397

Physician Preferences for Botulinum Toxin Injections in Anticoagulated Patients with Spasticity

2016· article· en· W2322689623 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Adam Kassam, Chetan P. Phadke, Farooq Ismail, Chris Boulias

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoWest Park Healthcare CentreWestern University
FundersAllerganUniversity of TorontoOntario Federation for Cerebral Palsy
KeywordsSpasticityMedicineComplicationAnesthesiaBotulinum toxinNeurotoxinSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand physician preferences and bleeding complication rates of intramuscular botulinum neurotoxin type A injections for spasticity management in anticoagulated patients, questionnaires were mailed to 138 physicians across Canada. The international normalized ratio comfort range for injections was <2.0 in 10%, 2.0 to 2.5 in 35%, 2.6 to 3.0 in 25%, and 3.1 to 3.5 in 20% of physicians. Only 23% injected outside their comfort value and 57% did not; 72% did not normalize the international normalized ratio value before injections. Only one injector reported the development of compartment syndrome. As expected, high variability exists in physician preferences in botulinum neurotoxin type A injection in anticoagulated patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207