Clinical comparative study of topiramate and botulinum antitoxin type A in the treatment of children with hemifacial spasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of topiramate(TP) and botulinum antitoxin type A(BAT) injections in the treatment of children with hemifacial spasm(HFS).Methods:Forty HFS children were treated with TP or BAT,with 20 children in each group.The therapeutic efficacy was evaluated by observing the time onset of effect,incidence rate of adverse drug reactions,average adverse drug reaction duration,excellence rate and total effective rate.The therapeutic efficacy before treatment and 5 weeks after treatment were judged by the modified Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale(Ⅱ)(TWSTRS-Ⅱ).Results: There was obvious difference between TP and BAT groups in average time of effect onset [(13.8±3.9) d vs(2.4±1.1) d,P0.05] and average adverse drug reaction duration [(5.0±1.5) d vs(18.7±6.4) d](P0.05).There was no obvious difference between the two groups in incidence rate of adverse drug reaction(35.0% vs 40.0%,P0.05),excellence rate(70.0% vs 85.0%,P0.05) and total effective rate(85.0% vs 100%,P0.05).TWSTRS-Ⅱ scores before treatment did not have significant difference between TP and BAT groups [(21.26±3.48) vs(22.57±3.89),P0.05],but after 5-week treatment,the TWSTRS-Ⅱ scores were obviously different [(9.32±2.75) vs(7.87±1.74),P0.05].Conclusion: Although TP has mild side effects of short duration,and BAT has quick onset of effect and high clinical effectiveness,both are useful for the treatment of HFS because of their excellent effectiveness and safety.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".