Therapeutic Benefit of Sensory Trick in Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Sensory tricks (STs) are voluntary maneuvers that dampen the abnormal movement in cervical dystonia (CD). Objectives To investigate the effect of ST on CD severity and treatment. Methods Data on 1039 individuals with a modified Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) score were extracted from the CD Patient Registry for Observation of OnabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) Efficacy study. Univariate and multivariate models evaluated the direct and indirect impact of ST on CD severity and treatment, while controlling for confounds. Results Complete ST was associated with a 10% lower mean onabotA dose. Absence of complete ST was associated with a higher onabotA dose after controlling for dystonia severity (OR = 1.37, P = 0.04). ST moderated the relationship between dystonia severity and toxin dose ( β = −0.16, P = 0.02). Conclusions ST is related to lower CD severity and toxin dose. It may have a direct effect on lowering toxin dose, independent of CD severity.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".