MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470389373 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.06.342

Poster 306 Clinical Characteristics of Cervical Dystonia: Differences between Patients Previously Treated with Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A and Naïve Patients

2015· article· en· W2470389373 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Misra, Richard Trosch, Savary Om, Pascal Maisonobe

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical dystoniaMedicineBotulinum toxinSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

P. Maisonobe: Employment - Ipsen To compare the clinical characteristics (as assessed by Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS)) of naïve patients with cervical dystonia (CD) presenting for treatment to those previously treated with BoNT-A who are at the end of their injection cycle and requiring reinjection. A meta-analysis was conducted on the baseline data from 3 observational studies. A pre-planned interim analysis were used for one of the study (INTEREST IN CD2). 2 international studies (INTEREST IN CD1 & 2, with 9 and 8 countries, respectively) and 1 US registry (ANCHOR-CD). 752 patients with idiopathic CD (616 previously treated with BoNT-A and 136 naïve). Not applicable TWSTRS There were no significant differences between subgroups in terms of patient demographics, but small differences in the predominant pattern of CD (previously treated vs. BoNT-A naïve) were noted: (rotational torticollis: 73% vs. 64%; laterocollis 19% vs. 26%; retrocollis 4% vs. 6%; other patterns <3% of patients). Previously treated patients had received a median of 8 (range 1-99) injection cycles; median time since their first BoNT-A injection was 44.7 (range 2-280) months. Overall, 60% patients had previously been treated with abobotulinumtoxinA, Dysport® (median dose 500 U), 37% with OnabotulinumtoxinA, Botox® (190 U) and 3% with IncobotulinumtoxinA, Xeomin® (150 U). BoNT-A naïve patients trended towards having higher TWSTRS total (mean±SD) (38.4±12.4 vs. 34.5±11.7), disability (11.7±6.6 vs. 9.8±6.0) and pain scores (8.9±5.1 vs. 6.6±5.0) at baseline. TWSTRS severity scores (mean±SD) were similar (17.9±5.0 vs. 18.0±4.7, respectively for BoNT-A naïve and previously treated patients). When compared to previously treated CD patients, ‘new’ patients presenting for treatment with BoNT-A tend to have higher levels of pain and disability. This suggests that continued treatment reduces the severity of CD pain and disability or that the therapeutic effects of their prior injection series has not yet worn off and the benefits of BoNT-A may last longer than patients perceive.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207