Toxin for Tics: Practical Guidance for Clinicians from a Registry‐Based Naturalistic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin is a recommended treatment for tics. There is little practical guidance on the use of this treatment. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to describe our experience using botulinum toxin injections for tics in adults. We provide information on tics treated, muscles injected, and dosages used to give practical guidance. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Calgary Adult Tic Registry on tic severity, the tics and muscles injected, and dosages. We assessed treatment length, reasons for discontinuation, and concurrent medications. RESULTS: Botulinum toxin was the most used medication for tics, received by 32 of 95 (33.7%) registry participants. Participants receiving botulinum toxin were significantly older and had significantly lower vocal tic severity and total tic severity. The most common motor tics treated were blinking, head turns, and shoulder raising. The mean length of treatment was 40.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for adults with tics.
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 | 0.042 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".