A Randomized, Evaluator-Blinded, Two-Center Study of the Safety and Effect of Volume on the Diffusion and Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin Type A in the Treatment of Lateral Orbital Rhytides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been considerable discussion about the effect of the degree of dilution of botulinum toxin (BTX) but very few scientific studies. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to observe as to whether a fivefold difference in concentration of BTX solution would produce a difference in clinical effect or duration of effect. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty individuals were enrolled at two sites and a within-subject paired-comparison study was performed on the lateral orbital area with a single injection of 5 U of BTX (BOTOX Cosmetic, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA). The results were assessed both clinically and using a computer-assisted estimation of the degree of wrinkling. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between the two sides. CONCLUSIONS: This is a small study and it may be that dilution does affect BTX result. We were, however, unable to detect any difference in this study, which suggests that the degree of dilution, at least within a fivefold margin, has only a small effect on the results of BTX injection in the lateral orbital area.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".