Selecting Goals and Target Muscles for Botulinum Toxin A Injection Using the Goal Oriented Facilitated Approach to Spasticity Treatment (GO-FAST) Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this article is to introduce the GO-FAST Tool (developed by the Toxnet group) to clinicians working in the field of neurological rehabilitation, specifically post-stroke spasticity management. The concepts utilized in the Tool and described in this article can be broadly grouped into five topics: the principles of patient-centred goal-setting; an algorithm for setting SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timed) treatment goals; goal-related target muscles and botulinum toxin type A dose determinants; goal attainment follow-up, scoring, and interpretation; and the multimodal approach to spasticity management. The Tool can enhance clinical practice by providing guided assistance with goal-setting and target muscle selection for botulinum toxin type A treatment. It also provides support with the follow-up evaluation of goal attainment and calculation of treatment success. The Tool is designed to be used by clinicians with varying levels of expertise in the field of neurological rehabilitation and post-stroke spasticity management, from those who are new to the field to those with many years of experience. A case study is presented in the Results Section of the article to illustrate the utility of the Tool in setting SMART treatment goals in the management of patients with post-stroke spasticity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".