Poster 296 AbobotulinumtoxinA Injection Patterns in Patients with Cervical Dystonia from the ANCHOR‐CD Registry Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cynthia Comella: Research Grants - Allergan, Ipsen, Merz, Consulting fees or other remuneration (payment) - Allergan, Merz To assess treatment patterns of abobotulinumtoxinA from the ANCHOR-CD registry of patients with cervical dystonia (CD). A prospective, open-label, non-interventional, “real-world” post-marketing registry study of CD patients treated with abobotulinumtoxinA. 41 US Clinical Sites. BoNT-naïve and non-naïve patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of idiopathic cervical dystonia were eligible. Patients were treated with Dysport, abobotulinumtoxinA according to the investigator's usual medical practice. The muscles injected, dose per muscle, number of sites into the muscle, and use of guidance technique were at the investigator's discretion. Patients continued in the study for ≤4 treatment cycles. The Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS), Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Of the 347 patients who completed the study, 75% were female, mean age 59.0±13.6 years, and mean age at symptoms onset 48.9±15.6 years. 73% had previous treatment with BoNT. The most common types of CD treated were mixed postures (68%). The most frequent single predominant posture was torticollis (25.6%); other forms accounted for <5% each. Median abobotulinumtoxinA dose was 500U (range 100U-2000U) during 4 cycles. Median time between retreatment intervals was 14 weeks, with 25% having been reinjected >14 weeks. 4-5 muscles across 11-12 injection points were injected during each cycle. The most frequently injected muscles across cycles included splenius capitis (91.6%-92.5%), levator scapulae (68.8%-71.5%), trapezius (68.0%-70.4%), and sternocleidomastoid (56.2%-61.4%). The most common adverse events (AEs) included dysphagia and muscle weakness. Five patients discontinued due to AEs. This study demonstrates the usual clinical practice of botulinum toxin injectors across multiple sites and demonstrates a consistent approach to abobotulinumtoxinA injection patterns and doses. Use of EMG guidance was variable, with less than half of the injections using this technique. Level II
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".