How Effective and Safe is Botulinum Toxin Therapy in Cervical Dystonia: The Current Stand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical dystonia (CD) is the most common focal dystonia that is characterized by involuntary contraction of cervical muscles causing abnormal head movements and postures. The treatment for CD was previously limited to oral medications, however, with consequent systemic side effects. In recent years, botulinum toxin (BoNT) has demonstrated efficacy in several studies and thus has received level A recommendation from both the American Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Neurological Sciences in the treatment of dystonia. In many countries, it is the first‐line treatment for CD. There are four types of toxin approved for the use in CD, three type A [OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnaBoNTA), AbobotulinumtoxinA (AboBoNTA), and Incobotulinumtoxin A (IncoBoNTA)] and one type B [RimabotulinumtoxinB (RimaBoNTB)]. Proper selection of affected muscles and dose of toxin are important parameters in successfully providing symptomatic treatment. Good response rate is defined as improvement of more than 25 % from baseline using the Toronto Western Torticollis Rating Scale. The most common side effect of chemodenervation with BoNT for CD is dysphagia.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it