Methodologies, Patient Characteristics, and Treatment Results Between Registry Studies of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Cervical Dystonia (P1.035)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess similarities and differences between methodology, patient characteristics, and treatment results from registry studies of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) in cervical dystonia (CD). Background: AbobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®), OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) and IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) are indicated for the treatment of CD. Open-label prospective registries were designed to collect patient response and/or health economics data in patients with CD who were treated with BoNT-A in the US. Design/Methods: We reviewed the “real world” prospective open-label registry studies designed to collect patient response in patients with CD for AbobotulinumtoxinA (ANCHOR-CD) OnabotulinumtoxinA (CD-PROBE) and IncobotulinumtoxinA (XCiDaBLE, blepharospasm also included), focusing on their overlapping efficacy assessments: Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS), patient and clinical global impression of change (PGIC and CGIC), and CD impact profile (CDIP-58). Results: The mean (±SD) age (59.0±13.6 years), age of onset (49±15.6 years) and gender distribution (75[percnt] females) were comparable among CD registries. More patients in ANCHOR-CD (73[percnt]) and XCiDaBLE (77[percnt]) had previously received prior BoNT treatment compared to CD-PROBE (36.5[percnt]). Changes in TWSTRS total scores were similar in ANCHOR-CD (-12.1, n=304, baseline-week 4 of cycle 1) and CD-PROBE (-11.8, n=479, baseline-visit 3, >4-6 weeks after second injection), as were changes in TWSTRS severity, disability, and pain subscales. TWSTRS was not assessed in XCiDaBLE. “Much improved” or “very much improved” ratings on CGIC were similar in ANCHOR-CD (62.7[percnt]; n=316, week 4/cycle 1) and CD-PROBE (61.4[percnt]; n = 479, visit 2, >4-6 weeks after first injection). Changes in CDIP-58 subscale scores were similar between ANCHOR-CD (cycle 1/day 1-cycle 3/day 1) and XCiDaBLE (CD patients; baseline-cycle 1/week 4), but larger in CD-PROBE (baseline-final visit, >4-6 weeks after cycle 3), possibly due to a higher proportion of BoNT-naïve patients.Conclusions: Patient characteristics and response patterns were generally similar across BoNT-A registries, supporting their individual effectiveness in CD.
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 | 0.038 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".