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
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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