Physical therapy program for cervical dystonia: a study of 20 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botulinum toxin (BTX) is the best therapeutic option in \npatients with cervical dystonia (CD), but physical therapy (PT) can be added to the treatment to achieve better results. Forty of our 70 patients with CD were enrolled in a controlled open study. Subjects were divided into two groups: G1 (intervention group comprising patients receiving BTX and PT) and G2 (control Group comprising patients receiving BTX only). Both groups were assessed using the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey \n(SF-36). On the TWSTRS, significant improvements in disease severity were seen in G1 and G2 but significant improvements on the pain and disability subscales were seen only in G1 patients. There was a significant difference only on the pain subscale between G2 and G1 following treatment. An analysis of the physical aspects of SF-36 showed significant improvement in G1 on three subscales. An intergroup difference was also seen on two subscales. \nRegarding emotional aspects, G1 showed a significant \nimprovement on three subscales. A significant difference on two subscales was also seen between G2 and G1 following treatment. BTX plus PT treatment achieved symptom relief in patients with CD and improved their quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".