P.037 Benefits of Treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA in Naive and Non-naive Patients with Cervical Dystonia are Sustained over Time in CD PROBE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The sustained effects of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with cervical dystonia (CD) who were naïve or non-naïve to botulinum toxin at enrollment in CD PROBE (CD Patient Registry for Observation of BOTOX® Efficacy) were evaluated. Methods: Patients were included if they completed all three treatment cycles and had accompanying data in this prospective, observational study. Assessments included CD severity, Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile (CDIP-58), Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS), treatment interval, total dose, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Changes in severity following each onabotulinumtoxinA treatment were generally similar between naïve (n=212) and non-naïve (n=138) patients. Severity scores were maintained or improved in most patients with mild/moderate symptoms, while 30.0-66.7% with the highest severity scores shifted to a lower score across treatments. Sustained improvements were seen in all CDIP-58 subscales and TWSTRS total scores irrespective of baseline CD severity and toxin status. The median time interval between injections was similar in naïve (93.0–98.0 days) and non-naïve patients (96.0–97.0 days); doses tended to be lower in naïve patients. The most common AEs (dysphagia, muscular weakness) were similar. Conclusions: CD severity was attenuated by repeat onabotulinumtoxinA treatments at consistent intervals regardless of prior botulinum toxin exposure. Treatments were well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".