The effect of botulinum toxin type A combined with rehabilitation on spasmodic torticollis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the impact of an injection of botulinum toxin type A combined with rehabilitation on the quality of life (QOL) of patients with spasmodic torticollis.Methods Thirty-eight patients with spasmodic torticollis were randomly divided into a combined treatment group and control group.Both groups were given a local muscular injection of botulinum toxin type A.One week later the combined group was given rehabilitation training.Both groups were assessed using the Toronto torticollis rating scale (TWSTRS),Tsui's scale and a health survey (SF-36) one week and eight weeks after the injection.Results Eight weeks after the injection,severity,disability,pain,physical functioning,vitality,mental health and Tsui scores had all increased significantly in the combined treatment group compared with before treatment.Physical functioning,pain,vitality,mental health and Tsui scores had also improved significantly compared with the control group.In the control group,only severity and Tsui scores were significantly improved compared with before treatment.Throughout the course of treatment there were no significant adverse reactions.Conclusions Combining botulinum toxin type A with rehabilitation has synergistic effects on spasmodic torticollis.It can significantly reduce disability scores,relieve pain and improve quality of life. Key words: Botulinum toxin type A; Spasmodic torticollis; Rehabilitation; Quality of life
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".