Botulinum Toxin Induced Atrophy: An Uncharted Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) produce local chemo-denervation by cleaving soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor activating protein receptor (SNARE) proteins. Botulinum neurotoxins are therapeutically indicated in several neurological disorders and have been in use for three decades. The long-term efficacy, safety, and side effects of BoNTs have been well documented in the literature. However, the development of muscle atrophy following chronic exposure to BoNTs has not received sufficient attention. Muscle atrophy is not only cosmetically distressing, but also has an impact on future injections. An extensive literature search was conducted on atrophy and mechanisms of atrophy. Five hundred and four relevant articles in the English language were reviewed. This review revealed the surprising lack of documentation of atrophy within the literature. In addition, as demonstrated in this review, the mechanisms and the clinical factors that may lead to atrophy have also been poorly studied. However, even with this limited information it is possible to indicate factors that could modify the clinical approach to botulinum toxin injections. This review highlights the need for further study of atrophy following BoNT injections.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".