Behandlungszufriedenheit bei Patienten mit zervikaler Dystonie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even though treatment guidelines recommend botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) as first line treatment for primary cervical dystonia (CD), there are only limited data on how BoNT-A-injections are administered in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This subgroup analysis evaluated patient satisfaction and symptom control under consideration of BoNT‑A treatment modalities in German and Austrian CD patients (DE/AT, n = 79) compared to the full international cohort (n = 995). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The INTEREST-IN-CD2 was a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational study. Course of treatment in adult primary CD patients under BoNT‑A treatment was assessed over a time period of 3 years. Primary outcome measure was the long-term satisfaction of patients with treatment, measured as maximum satisfaction between two consecutive injections as well as satisfaction at the time of reinjection. RESULTS: Treatment satisfaction at the maximum effect was stable and comparably good in both populations during the study (82.3-92.7% and 85.0-89.9%). Satisfaction decreased with decreasing BoNT‑A effect at the end of the treatment interval: it was comparable at the start of the study in both groups (54.2% vs. 51.4%), decreased numerically in the DE/AT group to 32.7% but remained stable in the total population. Analysis of Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and Tsui scores did not reveal any substantial differences between the DE/AT subgroup and total cohort. CONCLUSION: Overall, the study confirmed good clinical symptom control by BoNT‑A. The numerical differences in the current satisfaction seen in the comparison of DE/AT to the total cohort are possibly due to different proportions of BoNT‑A naïve patients in both groups, as they expressed different levels of satisfaction than previously treated patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".