Botulinum Toxin and Deep Brain Stimulation in Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is a recognized treatment for different dystonia subtypes and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2003. The European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) and the International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society (MDS) recommend DBS for dystonia after failure of botulinum toxin (BoNT) and other oral medications for dystonia treatment. In addition, several long-term studies have demonstrated the continuous efficacy of DBS on motor and quality of life (QoL) scores. However, there are only a few reports comparing the overall impact of surgical treatment in BoNT protocols (e.g., dosage and number of selected muscles before and after surgery). This retrospective multicenter chart-review study analyzed botulinum toxin total dosage and dosage per muscle in 23 dystonic patients before and after DBS surgery. The study’s primary outcome was to analyze whether there was a reduction in BoNT dosage after DBS surgery. The mean BoNT dosages difference between baseline and post-surgery was 293.4 units for 6 months, 292.6 units for 12 months, and 295.2 units at the last visit. The median total dose of BoNT in the preoperative period was 800 units (N = 23). At the last visit, the median was 700 units (p = 0.05). This represents a 12.5% reduction in BoNT median dosage. In conclusion, despite the limitations of this retrospective study, there was a significant reduction in BoNT doses after DBS surgery in patients with generalized dystonia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".