Goals Set by Patients Using the <i>ICF</i> Model before Receiving Botulinum Injections and Their Relation to Spasticity Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is used to assess functional gains in response to treatment. Specific characteristics of the functional goals set by individuals receiving botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) injections for spasticity management are unknown. The primary objectives of this study were to describe the characteristics of the goals set by patients before receiving BoNTA injections using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to determine whether the pattern of spasticity distribution affected the goals set. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective chart review was carried out in an outpatient spasticity-management clinic in Toronto. A total of 176 patients with a variety of neurological lesions attended the clinic to receive BoNTA injections and completed GAS from December 2012 to December 2013. The main outcome measures were the characteristics of the goals set by the participants on the basis of ICF categories (body functions and structures, activity and participation) and the spasticity distribution using Modified Ashworth Scale scores. Results: Of the patients, 73% set activity and participation goals, and 27% set body functions and structures goals (p<0.05). In the activity and participation category, 30% of patients set moving and walking goals, 28% set self-care and dressing goals, and 12% set changing and maintaining body position goals. In the body functions and structures category, 18% set neuromuscular and movement-related goals, and 8% set pain goals. The ICF goal categories were not related to the patterns of spasticity (upper limb vs. lower limb or unilateral vs. bilateral spasticity) or type of upper motor neuron (UMN) lesion (p>0.05). Conclusion: Our results show that patients receiving BoNTA treatment set a higher percentage of activity and participation goals than body functions and structures goals. Goal classification was not affected by type of spasticity distribution or type of UMN disorder.
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".