ArticleToxins2025
Artificial Intelligence in Managing Spasticity with Botulinum Toxin Type A-Insights from an Exploratory Pilot Investigation: The AIMS Study.
Article in Toxins, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the potential role of artificial intelligence in optimizing botulinum toxin type A treatment for spasticity and to evaluate its alignment with expert clinical decisions. A comparative analysis was conducted using thirty hypothetical clinical cases involving individuals with spasticity resulting from various neurological conditions. Five rehabilitation physicians, each with more than five years of experience, participated in the study. An artificial intelligence model trained on scientific literature and clinical guidelines generated treatment recommendations, including target muscles and dosages, which were compared with those proposed independently by the physicians. The primary outcome was the level of agreement in muscle selection and dosage. The model demonstrated consistency and adherence to guidelines but showed limited adaptability in complex presentations, such as an adducted thigh and equinovarus foot. It generally recommended lower dosages and differed significantly from physicians in both muscle selection and treatment strategies. Artificial intelligence shows promise as a clinical support tool in spasticity management, offering standardized and reproducible recommendations. However, its limited capacity to interpret clinical subtleties currently restricts its practical application. Future models should integrate multimodal clinical data and real-time clinician feedback to better emulate expert decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.