Therapeutic Effect of Botulinum Toxin a on Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy: Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the clinical effect of botulinum toxin A (BXT-A) on children with spastic cerebral palsy. All clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BXT-A in children with spastic cerebral palsy were collected from the database establishment to April 20, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed on the extracted data using Review Manager 5.4 and R 4.0 software. A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1357 cases of spastic cerebral palsy and 704 cases in the BTX-A+ rehabilitation group. Meta-analysis results showed that: MAS score [MD=-0.83, 95%CI (-0.86, -0.80), Z=51.03, P<0.05] and GMFM-88 score [MD=5.50, 95%CI (4.40, 6.59), Z=9.85, P<0.05] in BTX-A+ rehabilitation treatment group, GMFM-D score [MD=8.51, 95%CI (5.24, 11.78), Z=5.09, P<0.05], GMFM-E score [MD=8.44, 95%CI (5.16, 11.72), Z=5.04, P<0.05], CSS score [MD=-1.86, 95%CI (-3.07, -0.66), Z=3.03, P<0.05], PRS score [MD=0.85, 95%CI (0.26, 1.44), Z=2.83, P<0.05] were better than the rehabilitation treatment group in these aspects, and the diversity between the two groups was statistically (P<0.05). BTX-A can effectively enhance motor function, and is an effective method for the treatment of children with spastic cerebral palsy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".