MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406483050 · doi:10.4103/aomd.aomd_74_24

Botulinum toxin beyond borders: Enhancing global access and understanding

2025· article· en· W4406483050 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Arsalan Bashir, Aashar Khalid

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Movement Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotulinum toxinToxinBusinessComputer scienceNeurosciencePsychologyBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Sir, Initially approved by the FDA in 1989, botulinum toxin A, was developed as a surgical alternative for strabismus patients.[1,2] Since then, its use has expanded, particularly in cosmetic treatments for wrinkles and facial esthetics.[3] Derived from Clostridium botulinum, botulinum toxin is a neurotoxin that prevents acetylcholine release, causing muscle paralysis. This mechanism is key to its safe and effective use in medicine.[1] Botulinum toxin is indicated for a wide range of conditions, with many uses being off-label; FDA-approved indications include chronic migraine, cervical dystonia, blepharospasm, strabismus, primary axillary hyperhidrosis, adult bladder dysfunction, pediatric detrusor overactivity, spasticity, and cosmetic applications. Off-label uses encompass the neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome, epicondylitis, and various types of pain (post-stroke, post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, trigeminal neuralgia, neuropathic, spinal cord injury-related, myofascial, and bladder pain), often as an alternative or last-resort treatment.[4] The preference of botulinum toxin over pharmacological treatments stems from its significant therapeutic benefits in conditions such as chronic migraine, cervical dystonia, and overactive bladder, as evidenced by studies highlighting its efficacy, safety, and tolerability.[4-6] As a minimally invasive option, botulinum toxin broadens the spectrum of patient treatment choices.[7] Patients often choose botulinum toxin due to its perceived effectiveness and preference for therapeutic injections over oral medications. In particular, in conditions such as overactive bladder, botulinum toxin is favored over treatments such as sacral neuromodulation.[6,7] In addition, botulinum toxin is the preferred treatment for specific conditions such as laryngeal dystonia and voice tremors.[8] Its non-invasive application and perceived benefits make botulinum toxin a favored choice over traditional pharmacological therapies in various medical scenarios. While botulinum toxin is generally considered safe, it is important to remain vigilant about its potential risks. Research has highlighted concerns regarding health hazards associated with counterfeit botulinum toxin injections, which can result in severe botulism cases.[9] Furthermore, the benefits of botulinum toxin are temporary, requiring repeated treatments and emphasizing the need for cautious utilization.[10-12] The production of botulinum toxin is a sophisticated process that demands exacting precision and expertise. Its effectiveness hinges on the potency of the botulinum neurotoxin. A specific cell-based potency assay for botulinum neurotoxin serotype A has been developed and approved by regulatory agencies such as the FDA, Health Canada, and the European Union to ensure consistent quality.[13] Although neurologists often prefer botulinum toxin over medications for specific conditions due to its fewer side effects and widespread off-label use, its cost effectiveness remains a topic of investigation. Some studies propose that botulinum toxin may be more cost effective than alternative treatments for various medical conditions.[14] However, evaluating the cost effectiveness of botulinum toxin requires considering dosing, treatment duration, and patient demographics.[15] The availability of botulinum toxin in underdeveloped countries poses a significant challenge due to costs and limited healthcare resources. While botulinum toxin is a common treatment globally, its accessibility in less developed nations is often restricted by economic and infrastructural barriers. The cost of botulinum toxin per patient per injection compared to other botulinum toxin products, such as Dysport, differs worldwide, with Dysport often being the less expensive option.[16] The rising popularity of botulinum toxin is due to its high effectiveness, fewer side effects, and lasting benefits, making it an indispensable medication. However, as global demand increases, improving its availability beyond Western countries becomes more urgent. Concerns about immunoresistance,[17] particularly in the Asian population, requires additional research. Furthermore, environmental factors, such as the heat in equatorial regions, may compromise the efficacy of botulinum toxin. Popularized by celebrities and social media as a cosmetic treatment, botulinum toxin can inadvertently reduce patients’ willingness to pay for a treatment perceived as cosmetic rather than therapeutic.[18] This poses as a significant barrier to neurologists or medical specialists when discussing botulinum toxin as a treatment option. In addition, a general lack of knowledge about proper usage frequencies and techniques, coupled with incorrect application, may lead to adverse effects and suboptimal results. The high import costs, resulting from the lack of local manufacturing, further exacerbate the situation. To better the reach and impact of botulinum toxin in economically disadvantaged areas, a comprehensive plan is advised. This plan should involve forming subsidies with international health bodies, enhancing the expertise of local medical staff in administering botulinum toxin, and upgrading healthcare facilities for optimal botulinum toxin storage and management. Investigating the potential for in-country production under stringent quality checks could help decrease expenses, while educational programs could boost understanding of the medical advantages of botulinum toxin. By implementing these measures, botulinum toxin could become a more accessible and cost-effective healthcare option in resource-scarce regions, significantly improving the well-being and health outcomes of patients. Authors’ contributions AK: Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, and the drafting and revising of the manuscript. MAB: Made substantial contributions to the design and implementation of the research, and the critical revision of the manuscript. Research project: Conception: Aashar Khalid, Muhammad A. Bashir Organization: Muhammad A. Bashir Execution: Muhammad A. Bashir Statistical analysis: Design: Aashar Khalid, Muhammad A. Bashir Execution: Muhammad A. Bashir Review and Critique: Aashar Khalid, Muhammad A. Bashir Manuscript preparation: Writing of the first draft: Review and Critique: Muhammad A. Bashir, Aashar Khalid Ethical compliance statement No ethical concerns as no human subjects or patients were involved in the study. The authors have reviewed the journal’s ethical publication guidelines and attest that this submission adheres to them. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Movement DisordersSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207