Dystonia Treatment: A Survey of Medication Use in an International Biorepository (P2.353)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of medication use in dystonia patients enrolled in an international biorepository study. To compare patient characteristics using oral medications, botulinum toxin, both oral medications and botulinum toxin and no medications. BACKGROUND: Dystonia is a disorder that causes abnormal posture through involuntary muscle spasm. Although botulinum toxin injections are the gold standard therapy for focal dystonias, oral medications such as anticholinergics and GABA-ergic classes are typically recommended. However, we currently do not know the range of medications actually used in patients with dystonia. DESIGN/METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis to look at medication use patterns in dystonia patients. We included 2,026 participants enrolled at 37 sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia through Project 1 of the Dystonia Coalition, an international biorepository study. The primary aim was to assess the frequency of medication classes that are generally recommended for treating patients with dystonia and the secondary aim was to compare characteristics (disease type, age, sex, duration of disease, co-morbid conditions, severity) of patients. RESULTS: Querying the database for the presence of any medication for dystonia used (including both injectable and oral therapy), we found 64[percnt] using medications (n=1,276) and 36[percnt] using no dystonia medications (n=725). Of those using medications, 40[percnt] (n=507) used botulinum therapy alone, 25[percnt] (n=324) used oral medications alone, and 35[percnt] (n=445) used both botulinum therapy and oral medications. Significant differences were found in medication use patterns by dystonia type (p=0.0009), by region (p<0.0001), and by focal dystonia subtype (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with dystonia enrolled in the Dystonia Coalition Project 1 database, were using medications to treat their dystonia. Overall, a complex picture of medication use patterns emerged with factors such as region, disease duration, type of dystonia, disease severity and psychiatric co-morbidities all playing a significant role.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".