Patient‐reported outcomes with botulinum neurotoxin type A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials establishing the efficacy of botulinum neurotoxin type A historically have included as outcomes investigator assessments and general patient global assessments of treatment. However, these outcomes are of limited value in determining the specific benefits desired by patients who seek facial rejuvenation. To address this issue, several patient-reported outcomes measures have been developed and utilized in clinical trials of botulinum neurotoxin type A (specifically, the BOTOX Cosmetic brand). The outcomes include the Self-Perception of Age (SPA) measure and the Facial Line Outcomes (FLO) questionnaire. On the FLO questionnaire, patients rate the degree to which their facial lines bother them; make them look older than they would like; prevent them from having a smooth facial appearance; and make them look tired, stressed, or angry when that is not how they feel. Several clinical trials have demonstrated significant improvements in these outcomes from baseline and versus placebo for the treatment of multiple upper facial lines as well as for treating the glabella as a single region. These outcomes data help in understanding patient objectives and motivations, establishing a treatment plan, and ensuring patient satisfaction. Clinicians can use the SPA measure for all patients to help show the value of treatment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".