Triple-Blind, Prospective, Internally Controlled Comparative Study Between AbobotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Facial Rhytids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: OnabotulinumtoxinA (ONA; Botox, Allergan, Irvine, CA) was discovered for cosmetic use in the mid-1980s for which it was FDA approved in April 2002. AbobotulinumtoxinA (ABO; Dysport, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc, Montreal, Quebec) was FDA approved in April 2009 for therapeutic and esthetic uses. The most recent studies make a comparison between the two formulations; however, information is still lacking in comparison studies. In this study, we compare efficacy and safety of a single treatment of two preparations of botulinum toxin A in patients with moderate to severe rhytids in the glabellar and crow's feet areas. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with moderate to severe wrinkles in either the glabellar or crow's feet area, or both, were given a single injection on day 0, with ABO and ONA injected on opposite sides of the face. Follow-up assessments were done at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 4 months, and 5 months. The study end points were onset of action, change in degree of wrinkles, patient satisfaction, duration of effect, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Results of onset of improvement with ABO vs. ONA in the glabellar and crow's feet regions show higher percentage of patients with earlier onset improvement with ABO. Evaluator assessment showed ABO lasted longer after 3 months in a significant number of patients in both areas, 83% with ABO vs. 48% with ONA at 4 months in the glabellar area, and 65% with ABO vs. 47% with ONA at 4 months in the crow's feet area. CONCLUSION: Time to improvement showed earlier onset and longer duration of improvement in a higher percentage of individuals with ABO when compared with ONA. ABO provides a safe and effective alternative in a dose ratio of 2.5:1 and 3:1 in the glabellar and crow's feet area, respectively.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".