OnabotulinumtoxinA for trigeminal neuralgia: a review of the available data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) patients may develop side effects from centrally acting drugs, have contraindications for neurosurgical procedures, or experience relapse during conventional therapies. OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT/A) has been reported to be effective for TN, although this finding has been challenged. An overview of the available evidence based on a narrative/qualitative analysis of the literature is presented. About 90% of patients who receive BoNT/A show an improvement, a higher figure than that reported for the placebo effect of BoNT/A for other headaches. Tolerability of BoNT/A is good, and its few side-effects are transient. The articles reviewed were mainly case reports, case series and open-label trials; however, randomized controlled trials have endorsed the efficacy of BoNT/A for TN. This evidence, together with a better understanding of the analgesic mechanisms of BoNT/A and its proven efficacy in treating other pain syndromes, supports the use of this toxin as a therapeutic option for TN.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".