MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117078967 · doi:10.3390/toxins12120807

Tolerability and Efficacy of Customized IncobotulinumtoxinA Injections for Essential Tremor: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

2020· article· en· W3117078967 on OpenAlexaff
Mandar Jog, Astrid Scheschonka, Robert Chen, Farooq Ismail, Chris Boulias, Douglas E. Hobson, David King, Michael Althaus, Olivier Simon, Hanna Dersch, Steven J. Frucht, David M. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueToxins · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWest Park Healthcare CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoLawson Health Research Institute
FundersAllerganTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesIpsenBoston Scientific CorporationMerz PharmaceuticalsMedtronic
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineTolerabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialEssential tremorUpper limbAnesthesiaAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this first, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled exploratory trial, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA and feasibility of using kinematic tremor assessment to aid in the planning of muscle selection in a multicenter setting. Reproducibility of the planning technology to other clinical sites was explored. In this trial (NCT02207946), patients with upper-limb essential tremor (ET) were randomized 2:1 to a single treatment cycle of incobotulinumtoxinA or placebo. A tremor kinematic analytics investigational device was used to define a customized muscle set for injection, related to the pattern of the wrist, forearm, elbow, and shoulder tremor for each patient, and the incobotulinumtoxinA dose per muscle (total ≤ 200 U). Fahn–Tolosa–Marin (FTM) Part B motor performance score, Global Impression of Change Scale (GICS), and kinematic analysis-based efficacy evaluations were assessed. Thirty patients were randomized (incobotulinumtoxinA, n = 19; placebo, n = 11). FTM motor performance scores showed greater improvement with incobotulinumtoxinA versus placebo at Week 4 (p= 0.003) and Week 8 (p= 0.031). The physician-rated GICS score indicated improvement with incobotulinumtoxinA versus placebo at Week 4 (p < 0.05). IncobotulinumtoxinA also decreased accelerometric hand-tremor amplitude versus placebo from baseline to Week 4 (p= 0.004) and Week 8 (p < 0.001), with persistent tremor reduction up to 24 weeks post-injection. IncobotulinumtoxinA produced a slight and transient reduction of maximal grip strength versus placebo; two patients reported localized finger muscle weakness. Customized incobotulinumtoxinA injections decreased tremor severity and improved hand motor function in patients with upper-limb ET after a single injection cycle, with a favorable tolerability profile. The study showed that tremor kinematic analytics technology could be successfully scaled for use in other clinical sites.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxinsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207