Consensus Recommendations on the Use of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Facial Aesthetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of botulinum toxin type A for facial enhancement is the most common cosmetic procedure currently undertaken in the United States. Overall clinical and study experience with botulinum toxin type A treatment for facial enhancement has confirmed that it is effective and safe in both the short and long term. Nevertheless, consistent guidelines representing the consensus of experts for aesthetic treatments of areas other than glabellar lines have not been published. Therefore, a panel of experts on the aesthetic uses of Botox Cosmetic (botulinum toxin type A; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.) was convened to develop consensus guidelines. This publication comprises the recommendations of this panel and provides guidelines on general issues, such as the importance of the aesthetic evaluation and individualization of treatment, reconstitution and handling of the botulinum toxin type A, procedural considerations, dosing and injection-site variables, and patient selection and counseling. In addition, specific considerations and recommendations are provided by treatment area, including glabellar lines, horizontal forehead lines, "crow's feet," "bunny lines" (downward radiating lines on the sides of nose), the perioral area, the dimpled chin, and platysmal bands. The review of each area encompasses the relevant anatomy, specifics on injection locations and techniques, starting doses (total and per injection point), the influence of other variables, such as gender, and assessment and retreatment issues. Factors unique to each area are presented, and the discussion of each treatment area concludes with a review of key elements that can increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. Summary tables are provided throughout.
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 | 0.044 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".