MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2952542535 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2019.41

IncobotulinumtoxinA and Deep Brain Stimulation

2019· article· en· W2952542535 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Derrick Soh, Alfonso Fasano

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical dystoniaDeep brain stimulationMedicineDystoniaBotulinum toxinAnesthesiaStimulationBlepharospasmPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineDiseaseParkinson's diseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guidelines recommend Botulinum toxin-A (BoNT-A) after deep brain stimulation (DBS), although the effectiveness of their combined use is uncertain. A chart review of Parkinson's disease (17) and dystonia (7) patients undergoing 302 injections with IncobotulinumtoxinA before or after DBS was performed. Patients with cervical dystonia received less IncobotulinumtoxinA after DBS (290.7 ± 124.0 vs. 192.4 ± 131.4, p = 0.005) and experienced an increased benefit (4.0 ± 3.4 vs. 8.4 ± 3.6 weeks, p = 0.003). No significant differences were found when comparing the treatment outcomes of 14 patients who received both IncobotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA after DBS. The use of BoNT-A after DBS is a useful strategy although prospective studies are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→