A Prospective, Randomized, Parallel Group Study Analyzing the Effect of BTX-A (Botox) and Nonanimal Sourced Hyaluronic Acid (NASHA, Restylane) in Combination Compared with NASHA (Restylane) Alone in Severe Glabellar Rhytides in Adult Female Subjects: Treatment of Severe Glabellar Rhytides with a Hyaluronic Acid Derivative Compared with the Derivative and BTX-A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past 15 years, BTX-A has become the standard treatment for dynamic glabellar furrowing. Some individuals have resting glabellar rhytides that are sufficiently deep that they respond poorly to BTX-A alone. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of BTX-A combined with intradermal nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) with the efficacy of NASHA alone in females with moderate to severe glabellar rhytides. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized study of 38 subjects with moderate to severe glabellar rhytides. Half of the subjects were treated with BTX-A and NASHA and the other half with NASHA alone. Their response was assessed clinically and photographically. RESULTS: By comparison with the NASHA-alone group, the BTX-A plus NASHA group showed a better response both at rest and on maximum frown, and this response was maintained for longer. The median time for return to preinjection furrow status occurred at 18 weeks in the NASHA-alone group compared with 32 weeks for the BTX-A plus NASHA group.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".