Claw Toe: Anatomic Guide for Injection of Botulinum Toxin into Foot Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor response to injection of botulinum toxin (BoNT) into the flexor digitorum longus (FDL) muscle has been reported especially in patients with claw foot deformity. We previously advocated BoNT injection into the flexor hallucis longus (FHL) muscle in such patients. Here, we determined the functional and anatomical relationships between FHL and FDL. METHODS: Toe flexion pattern was observed during electrical stimulation of FHL and FDL muscles in 31 post-stroke patients with claw-foot deformity treated with BoNT. The FHL and FDL tendon arrangement was also studied in five limbs of three cadavers. RESULTS: Electrical stimulation of the FHL muscle elicited big toe flexion in all 28 cases examined and second toe in 25, but the response was limited to the big toe in 3. FDL muscle stimulation in 29 patients elicited weak big toe flexion in 1 and flexion of four toes (2nd to 5th) in 16 patients. Cadaver studies showed division of the FHL tendon with branches fusing with the FDL tendon in all five limbs examined; none of the tendons was inserted only in the first toe. No branches of the FDL tendon merged with the FHL tendon. CONCLUSION: Our results showed coupling of FHL and FDL tendons in most subjects. Movements of the second and third toes are controlled by both the FDL and FHL muscles. The findings highlight the need for BoNT injection in both the FDL and FHL muscles for the treatment of claw-toe deformity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.027 |
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".